Social Darwinism

The following article provides a summary of social Darwinism. Despite the fact that it is an often used and recognizable term, social Darwinism is nonetheless difficult to define. This difficulty arises because social Darwinism has little to do with Charles Darwin or his theory of evolution; rather, social Darwinists appropriated Darwin's ideas to justify social and political ends. Darwin's ideas were appropriated to justify competing ends, so that those lumped under the general label "social Darwinists" defended capitalism and socialism, cooperation and competition. Also, the term "social Darwinism" was applied by historians retrospectively, and some would argue, incorrectly. Within this framework, the article presents Darwin's theory of evolution, the work of Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner (most often identified as the leading social Darwinists of the late nineteenth century), and the eugenics movement and Nazi Holocaust, which represent two extreme examples of the misuse of science for political gain. The article concludes by discussing how social Darwinism's abuse of science discouraged scholarship on the relationship between biology and human behavior.

Keywords Capitalism; Competition; Cooperation; Eugenics; Natural Selection; Survival of the Fittest

Social Darwinism

Overview

Social Darwinism is a widely recognized term, both within academia and without, and yet it is not easily defined. As Caudill writes, "For a concept that seems so familiar to so many… the meaning of the term 'Social Darwinism' is strangely elusive" (1997, p. 64). It is elusive for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it has almost nothing to do with Charles Darwin or his theory of natural selection. Secondly, it has been associated with a large variety of "schools of thought," some contradictory, so that in the end it has been difficult to develop a single, definitive definition. Finally, social Darwinism is a term that has been applied by historians retrospectively, to describe the ideas of philosophers and sociologists who themselves never identified as social Darwinists. And yet, despite its elusiveness, it was also one of the most influential movements of the nineteenth and twentieth century. Indeed, Ryan describes it as a "controversial and complex intellectual and cultural phenomenon that sent shock waves through Western, particularly American society, that still reverberate today" (1999, p. ix).

A logical place to begin an exploration of social Darwinism is with the name itself. As Stephen T. Asma explains, "it should be immediately noted that Social Darwinism…had almost nothing to do with Darwin but everything to do with Herbert Spencer" (1933, p. 10). What is known as social Darwinism, he argues, should really be referred to as "social Spencerism" (Asma, 19933, p. 11). But Spencer was a contemporary of Darwin's; other scholars like Douglas Allchin suggest the defining tenet of social Darwinism—the idea that humans are subject to the same natural laws of competition and individualism as other life forms—predated both Darwin and Spencer (2007). Similarities to Thomas Hobbes's view of man as inherently selfish, and Thomas R. Malthus's notion that limited resources breed competition, suggest to Allchin that social Darwinism should be called "Hobbism or Malthusianism" (2007, p. 114). In the United States, sociologist and Yale professor William Graham Sumner was the most visible defender of social Darwinism; described as Spencer's "American deputy," however, few historians have offered "Sumnerism" as a more appropriate name.

Yet, if Darwin, Spencer, and Sumner are the three central characters to social Darwinism, then it is important to understand the perspective from which each contributed to the dialogue. For Darwin and Spencer, especially, the study of evolution was of primary importance. Spencer, however, studied it as a philosopher, writing without an academic appointment of any kind, communicating his ideas largely through the popular press (Caudill, 1997). Darwin, on the other hand, studied evolution as a biologist, and he was widely accepted in the scientific community. Indeed, Spencer went to great (often unsuccessful) lengths to distinguish himself from Darwin and resented the notoriety Darwin received. At the same time, Darwin was wary of Spencer's extension of evolutionary principles to the realm of the sociological, and he found his writing unnecessarily obtuse (Asma, 1993; Caudill, 1997). If Darwin and Spencer were academics, then Sumner, albeit a professor, was a practitioner at heart. He continually looked for ways to put theory into practice, especially with regard to social policy on immigration, poverty, taxes, and education. In the end, however, Sumner's writings and policies—and to some degree Spencer's as well—contained very few traces of Darwin's ideas (Hodgson, 2004). As Tilman explains, Spencer and Sumner "made careers out of exploiting" the ideas of Darwin (2001, p. ix). Understanding how their ideas differ from one another is the first step in unraveling social Darwinism.

Further Insights

Charles Darwin & the Theory of Natural Selection

With the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859, Charles Darwin became the first to explain the mechanism by which evolution took place. This mechanism—or Darwin’s theory of natural selection—became the defining signature of his work. Specifically, Darwin argued that plants and animals, in all their variety, had evolved to their present form because of three principles: all organisms reproduce; each organism within a given species differs slightly from all others; and all organisms compete for survival (Degler, 1991). Darwin argued that those organisms that are best able to adapt to a changing environment would outbreed others; over time, adjustments to the environment might lead to the development of a new species altogether.

The idea of natural selection has often been compared to the process that a breeder of horses might follow, intentionally selecting those individual animals displaying the most desired traits for breeding. But natural selection differs in one significant respect. That is, the breeder exercises intention and purpose, whereas nature has no goal in mind at all. As Carl N. Degler explains, "the immense diversity of living organisms resulted, according to Darwin, not from a plan of purpose but from the accidents of history, from those changes in climate, weather, geology, and food supply, or the increase or decrease in the presence of enemies to which an animal or plant might be subjected" (1991, p. 6). Importantly, by discrediting the notion of purpose, Darwin also indirectly undermined the Old Testament story of God’s creation of the world.

Missing from Darwin's first publication was any mention of how natural selection applied to human beings (Degler, 1991). His second publication, The Descent of Man, (1871) however, was devoted entirely to establishing the connection between humans and other animals. As Degler (1991) writes, Darwin's intention—as evidenced in notebooks produced long before either publication— "was [always] to demonstrate the application of natural selection to human evolution" (p. 12). Does this alone, however, qualify Darwin as a social Darwinist? Most scholars, like Allchin (2007) respond with a resounding no. Others, however, see traces of “social Spencerism” in Darwin's writing (Caudill, 1997; Degler, 1991). "It is quite true that scattered throughout the Descent of Man are passages suggesting that Darwin believed the principle of survival of the fittest justified as well as explained the social hierarchy in human affairs. Darwin, in sum, was hardly free from the accoutrements of social Darwinism" (Degler, 1991, p. 11). If there were only traces of social Darwinism in Darwin's work, what form would his work have taken if social Darwinist tenets were more prominent?

The Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer & William Graham Sumner

Arguably, the most defining characteristic of social Darwinism is its extension of Darwinist principles into the social sciences. Importantly, however, such extensions were made less on the basis of any sound, empirical evidence and more as a way of justifying previously held social and political beliefs. Rick Tilman writes, "Charles Darwin's…The Origin of Species, although a treatise of enormous scientific value, was sufficiently ambiguous as to lend itself to various political and sociological interpretations" (2001, p. ix). Allchin argues the point more passionately. Social Darwinism, he writes, "defames science, especially Darwinian concepts, by portraying an ill-informed cultural interpretation of science as an extension of science itself" (2007, p. 115).

Although social Darwinists such as Spencer and Sumner have largely been discredited, it was precisely their appeal to science that gave them credibility and acceptance in the first place. Indeed, Spencer coined the term "survival of the fittest" to describe the process whereby those organisms best able to adapt to the environment outlive and outbreed others. Several years later, after the first publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin incorporated the phrase into his own work. Shared terminology such as this led many to believe Spencer rested upon the same solid, scientific research as Darwin. But the appeal to science was not the only factor contributing to the widespread popularity of social Darwinism in the late nineteenth century. As Edward Caudill argues, survival of the fittest was also a relatively simple idea that could be shaped toward different ends, and it "appealed to the educated middle and upper classes, whose social and economic superiority it explained in terms of scientific law" (1997, p. xiii).

Flaws in the Theory

Before defining in greater detail the tenets of Social Darwinism, as espoused by Spencer and Sumner, it is important to understand the ways in which the social Darwinist application of Darwin's theory of evolution to human society was fundamentally flawed. First and foremost, the biological processes of natural selection do not easily explain characteristics of social groups. Political power and economic class, Allchin points out, are not biological traits (2007). The unit of selection also became a source of confusion in the application of Darwinist principles to human society (Caudill, 1997). Were Spencer and Sumner referring to the evolution of society as a whole or to the evolution of its individual members? They referred to each alternately, often leading to conflicting results. Finally, Spencer and Sumner mistakenly viewed adaptation to the environment as a sign of progress (Allchin, 2007; Caudill, 1997). Whereas Darwin believed evolution proceeded without purpose, by accidents of history, Spencer "was a social determinist who believed that society gradually would move toward its potential in a uniform manner" (Caudill, 1997, p. 67).

However, social Darwinists were less concerned about following the letter of scientific law and were more interested in promoting a particular social agenda. What was the prevailing agenda of social Darwinists? Although Darwinism was used, at times, to promote conflicting viewpoints, the particular variety of social Darwinism preached by Spencer and Sumner was most pervasive. For Richard Hofstadter, whose 1940 publication Social Darwinism in American Thought was the seminal work for a period of time, social Darwinism consisted of three elements: the notion of survival of the fittest; classical economics, particularly laissez-faire; and a Protestant work ethic, with its emphasis on the relationship between economic success and moral virtue (as cited in Tilman, 2001, p. x).

In short, Spencer and Sumner were vehement defenders of capitalism and the free market. And they opposed government intervention of any kind. "Free competition, Spencer argued, was a natural law of economics and the best guarantor of a community's well-being. Governmental interference with the natural law of competition would hinder social progress and ultimately would result in economic misfortune" (Caudill, 1997, p. 67). Sumner, in his 1883 publication What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, advanced the argument, claiming that unfettered access to the structure of capitalism was all any member of society—rich or poor—owed one another (as cited in Tilman, 2001, p. xii). Sumner believed each person was ultimately paid what his contribution was worth. Indeed, "for Sumner, competition was as much a natural law as gravity, and regulation of competition ultimately as futile as attempting to regulate gravity" (Caudill, 1997, p. 68).

What implications did this perspective have for the jobless and poor? As Asma writes, "Spencer himself adamantly opposed all state aid to the poor on the grounds that it would be an interference with the 'natural' developmental process" (1993, p. 11). According to social Darwinists, the poor and homeless, by virtue of being poor and homeless, had demonstrated that they were inferior and unfit for survival. Others could only stand by and watch, "but take some consolation in the fact that it was 'fated' by nature to happen" (Asma, 1993, p. 11). Because of the primacy of the Protestant work ethic and its emphasis on the relationship between economic success and virtue, it was a small logical leap for social Darwinists to conclude that the poor "deserved their destitution" (Asma, 1993, p. 11).

Spencer's faith in nongovernmental interference led him to oppose public policy of all sorts, including free public education. According to Spencer, free public education "could only be interpreted as a betrayal of economic individualism and an oppressive concession to State collectivism" (Tilman, 2001, p. xiii). Indeed, Sumner and Spencer opposed all efforts to remake social institutions, claiming that such attempts interfered with man's natural right to participate in free exchange and have access to unlimited wealth. They failed to understand that their endorsement of laissez-faire capitalism was itself an attempt to remake social institutions, albeit in a different fashion. In the end, Sumner criticized others for their "absurd attempts to make the world over," preferring to view his own attempts as part of the natural order.

Villains or Misunderstood?

Spencer and Sumner are easily portrayed as villains, advocating a competitive and combative mentality within social groups while showing little care and concern for the less fortunate. Hofstadter, a prominent early twentieth-century historian, helped to solidify this perspective in much of his work. Caudill argues, however, that he and others often overlooked the complexity and nuance of Spencer and Sumner's beliefs (1997). In particular, Spencer, like Darwin, recognized the importance of cooperation as well as competition in evolution. Thus, while Spencer opposed government subsistence, he believed in private self-help. The more fortunate, he argued, should help the poor begin to help themselves. Spencer wrote about justice and generosity as necessary elements in any social structure (Caudill, 1997). In the end, Caudill argues, "Spencer's survival of the fittest was rather benign, notably lacking in tooth-and-claw logic" (1997, p. 72).

Because social Darwinism is so closely associated with Spencer and Sumner, it is easy to forget that Darwin's ideas about evolution were appropriated to support other, often opposing, ideas (Caudill, 1997; Kaye, 1997). That is, the type of social Darwinism espoused by Spencer was a defense of capitalism, but socialists and nationalists used evolutionary principles to suggest the 'naturalness' of their economic and political system as well. Similarly, some used Darwin to defend conflict and war, while others used it to argue for cooperation and social harmony (Caudill, 1997). Thus, the application of Darwinists principles to human society was distributed uniformly along the political and economic spectrum. Part of this complexity is lost because the term “social Darwinism” was applied retrospectively. Geoffrey M. Hodgson traces the evolution of the term itself in academic publications and documents significant shifts in the term’s meaning over the period of several decades (2004). Hofstadter, Hodgson argues, is responsible for portraying Spencer and Sumner as leading social Darwinists, while at the same time "lump[ing] together all sorts of views under the vaguely defined label" (2004, p. 450).

Issues

Abuses & Misuses of Darwinism

All social Darwinists, to some extent, are guilty of misusing Darwinism for political or social ends. Spencer and Sumner used it to justify capitalism and social hierarchy. Others, however, used it for far more pernicious ends. The eugenics movement and the Nazi Holocaust provide two such examples.

Racism in the United States in the early twentieth century was not a new phenomenon, but the use of science to justify it gave it renewed energy. As Caudill explains, "Darwin's natural selection itself had evolved from biological theory, to social, and economic theory, until finally it provided the intellectual foundation for creating a 'better' human race" (1997, p. 97). Those who attempted to create this better human race through a program of "selective breeding" were known as eugenicists. Francis Galton, cousin to Darwin, founded the movement because "he was convinced that society needed to promote the reproduction of its better members in order not to be swamped by the unfit, for which urban slums were seen as prime breeding ground" (Caudill, 1997, p. 99). Indeed, irrational fears such as these were fueled by rapid societal changes, such as urbanization, industrialization, and immigration, and eugenicists were willing to take significant measures to stem the tide of change. In 1924 they successfully passed national legislation to restrict immigration of people deemed less desirable; smaller governmental units at the county level even proposed sterilization legislation. Ultimately, the eugenics movement declined as World War II broke out, and it became increasingly difficult for the public to distinguish their ideals from Adolf Hitler's.

The Nazis' use of biological evolutionary theory to justify their program of racial purification was, in the end, what compromised whatever shred of intellectual and scientific credibility social Darwinists had left. As Degler (1991) writes, "Social Darwinism was definitely killed, not merely scotched" (p. ix). But again, it was the Nazis' appeal to science which garnered them power and acceptance in the first place. "The Nazis were brutal, sadistic, even contradictory in their so-called thinking about race, but they were not stupid. [They knew] the veneer of even a little scientific respectability could help stall international decisiveness about the Nazi's actions and intentions" (Caudill, 1997, p. 115). Although there are many parallels between the eugenics movement in the United States and Nazism (specially racist beliefs and practices and the use of science to gain political advantage), Caudill argues that further comparisons are unfair: "[Germany] took that fateful, radical final step in promoting 'the fittest', while the [United States] stopped far short of a program of extermination" (1997, p. 132).

The Return to Darwin & Biology

An unfortunate consequence of the social Darwinist movement, many argue, is that many scholars have since been quick to dismiss the role of biology in explaining human behavior (Hodgson, 2004). In other words, social Darwinism, particularly as it existed in its extreme forms in the eugenics movement and Nazi science, instigated a backlash against those who emphasized nature over nurture in the long-standing debate in the social sciences. As Hodgson writes, "A worry is that the term 'social Darwinism' has been used in the twentieth century to close down much of the discussion in the social sciences concerning the influence of human biology on human behavior. Those misguided by the rhetoric of 'social Darwinism' are less well prepared to engage with these developments" (2004, p. 429).

Although social Darwinism’s application to the Holocaust and the eugenics movement may have quashed genuine dialogue about the role of biology in human evolution for some period of time, the end of the twentieth century saw renewed interest in biological explanations for human behavior. Importantly, however, scholars distance themselves from the pseudoscientific approach of social Darwinists. Degler writes, "It's important to recognize that this 'return to biology' is not simply a revival of repudiated ideas, like racism, sexism, or eugenics. The story told here of the return to biology does not resuscitate Herbert Spencer" (1991, p. ix). Nor does it discredit the role of the environment; those who have revisited Darwin in the last half century are not trying to marginalize culture's influence on human behavior but, rather, to keep others from "pushing biology out of the picture" entirely (Degler, 1991, p. 329).

Terms & Concepts

Capitalism: Economic system based on private rather than public ownership of production and capital goods. Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner believed that capitalism was the "natural law" of economics. They opposed government interference of any kind, arguing that such interference would upset the natural order. The poor and homeless were the "less fit" members of society, the wealthy the "more fit"; everyone's place in the social hierarchy was, they argued, as it should be.

Competition: Although Darwin believed cooperation and competition were both essential elements in the survival of the fittest, competition was often emphasized over the latter in the popular and scientific press. Spencer, too, recognized the need for cooperation and generosity on an individual level (as opposed to governmental level); his theories, too, however, were portrayed as a promotion for "tooth-and-claw" competition above all else.

Cooperation: Social Darwinists believed competition was a natural law of social order, but they reserved room for cooperation and generosity in their theory as well. Herbert Spencer, in particular, emphasized the importance of private help (as opposed to government assistance) for the poor and less fortunate.

Eugenics: A movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century whose aim was to create a "better race" through selective breeding. Eugenics was introduced by Francis Galton, cousin to Darwin, and was one of the more extreme forms of social Darwinism. Eugenicists misused science to promote a racist agenda.

Natural Selection: Darwin's theory of evolution is based on the idea of natural selection, which he introduced in his 1859 book The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs and is based on three principles: all organisms reproduce; each organism within a given species differs slightly from all others; and all organisms compete for survival (Degler, 1991). Darwin argued that those best able to adapt to a changing environment would outbreed others, thereby passing on favorable traits; over time, adjustments to the environment might lead to the development of a new species altogether.

Survival of the Fittest: Herbert Spencer coined the term "survival of the fittest" to describe to the process whereby those organisms best able to adapt to the environment outlive and outbreed others. Several years later, after the first publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin incorporated the phrase into his own work

Bibliography

Allchin, D. (2007). Social un-Darwinism: How does society relate to nature in an evolutionary perspective? American Biology Teacher, 69, 113-115. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24872061&site=ehost-live

Asma, S. T. (1993). The new social Darwinism: Deserving your destitution. Humanist, 53, 10-12. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9401313821&site=ehost-live

Caudill, E. (1997). Darwinian myths: The legends and misuses of a theory. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press.

Cobble, D. S. (2012). Don’t blame the workers. Dissent, 59, 35–39. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=69882217

Degler, C.N. (1991). In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Darwinism in American social thought. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hodgson, G. M. (2004). Social Darwinism in Anglophone academic journals: A contribution to the history of the term. Journal of Historical Sociology, 17, 428-463. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15073330&site=ehost-live

Horgan, J. (1995). The new social Darwinists. Scientific American, 273, 174-184. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9510134430&site=ehost-live

Kaye, H. (1997). The social meaning of modern biology. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with FullText: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6822597&site=ehost-live

Martin, M. E. (2012). Philosophical and religious influence on social welfare policy in the United States: the ongoing effect of reformed theology and social Darwinism on attitudes toward the poor and social welfare policy and practice. Journal of Social Work, 12, 51–64. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=69812712

Schubert, M. (2011). The ‘German nation’ and the ‘black Other’: social Darwinism and the cultural mission in German colonial discourse. Patterns of Prejudice, 45, 399–416. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=67285861

The story of man. (2005). The Economist, 377 (8458), p. 11. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19250053&site=ehost-live

Tilman, R. (2001). Introduction. In F. X. Ryan (Ed.), Social Darwinism and its critics (pp. ix-xxii). Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press.

Suggested Reading

Bannister, R. C. (1979). Social Darwinism: Science and myth in Anglo-American social thought. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Crook, P. (2007). Darwin's coat-tails: Essays on social Darwinism. New York, NY: Peter Lang Press.

Hofstadter, R. (1944). Social Darwinism in American thought. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Numbers, R. L., & Stenhouse, J. (Eds.). (1999). Disseminating Darwinism: The role of place, race, religion, and gender. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Stewart, I. (2011). Commandeering time: the ideological status of time in the social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 57, 389–402. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=65110834