Social Darwinism

What is Social Darwinism?

Social Darwinism is idiocy.

It is a theory that was popular in the late 1800's, a theory whereby the notions of survival-of-the-fittest and adaptability were applied to everyday society and economies. It was used at the time to justify, amongst other things, imperialism (primarily British), racism, classism and social inequality. Due to its links to the above nasties, it has been largely discredited. However, some vestiges of its thought and support still remain.

The actual term "Social Darwinism" was coined by Herbert Spencer, in Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857), where he proposed:

"this law of organic progress [evolution] is the law of all progress. Whether it be in the development of the Earth, in the development of Life upon its surface, the development of Society, of Government, ..., this same evolution of the simple into the complex, through a process of continuous differentiation, holds throughout."

Spencer went on to discuss imperialism, racism and classism, and even ranked societies based on their progress.

The Social Darwinist theory has often been traditionally adopted by two groups; 'old guard' Conservatives (think Franciso Franco) who see it as a way of justifying classism, racism and social inequality (its use in this sense is obsolete); and classical economic liberals (so-called "Libertarians" in the USA, though this term is used more commonly overseas to refer to your average Bakuninist anarchist), who see a relation between our biological and social/economic processes.

While the theories of evolution (which is generally credited to Charles Darwin, though he was by no means the first, or last, person to study evolution) do not generally support this view (the relation of organic evolution to social and economic 'evolution' [progress]), and Darwin himself, reputedly, opposed it, they have gained a foothold in many peoples ideologies and political thoughts. They served, somewhat, to revive the theories of Hobbes and Malthus, the latter of whom argued that as increasing population must outgrow its food supply, it was "natural", and inevitable, to allow the weakest to starve.

Jonathan Swift was a main opposer of this so-called "scientific" theory, and satirised it savagely, saying in A Modest Proposal that, similarly, cannibalism could be justified in order to control overopulation.

As I stated earlier, these ideas have been discredited extensively. First of all, they bear little or no relation to the 'Darwinism' of organic life, save, perhaps, a few misinterpetations (such as "survival of the fittest," which was intended to refer to, narrowly, how certain traits of animals were passed down. The popular misconception is that "fittest" is a synonym for 'progress,' or 'advancement.' (It is neither.) In fact, those who are best adapted to pass on their genes often do so through some sort of cooperative arrangement or even an equivalent of self-sacrifice for the next generation (note Robert Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation.)).

Furthermore, the leap from 'biological science,' i.e., hard fact and 'the unchangeable way of things,' fails to account for the increased consciousness of human beings, which allows them to make moral and cultural (more on the latter in a moment) decisions, without paying heed to their most natural instincts. Study of early society has also shown that our survival can be credited more to our cooperation and self-sacrifice, rather than a I-come-first-social-survival-of-the-fittest kind of doctrine.

Also, as the only animals with the capacity to create 'culture,' a thing which requires both social and economic cooperation, humans obviously have no place giving a 'sink or swim' philosophy to society and economics. When we can develop complex social networks capable of supporting each other, and have been doing for thousands of years, it becomes obsolete to apply it to, first, individual humans acting in a social and economic sense, and second (and foremost), to social groups, economic organisations, etc.

 

//rolls eyes

 

DM, if you have nothing productive to say, please don't post.

 

Being as this is techinically a Star Wars board, your focus determines your reality. Social Darwinism doesn't have to be right wing and it doesn't have to be used to justify all the wrong things in society. Granted after reading your post i'm not as well read as you are but to me social Darwinism is only the necessary aspects of society surviving and that which is outdated dieing off. Surely this supports a class-less system because as the value based on class dies, so will the concept of social stratification based on wealth

 

In my opinion, the idea of social darwinism--whether voiced or not--does still exist on many fronts, and by its own existence destroys any hope for peace. There are far too many examples in the world right now.

Good thread, very informative.

 

I agree. I may have to read up more on this.

 

Interesting.

In your last two paragraphs, there seems to be a shift in rhetoric from 'Social Darwinism', which is thoroughly discredited, to a discussion about 'competition', and by inference, capitalism.

At least, that's where I think you are going with this.

 

Yeah, there was a shift towards competition vs. cooperation.

I intended, through the first part, to comment more on the social side (by references to culture, etc.), and the second through the economic side (competition).

Oh, and I think DarthMischievous' eyerolling has more to do with negative sentiment carried over from another thread, than genuine disagreement with my post.

- Scarlet.

 

I don't necessarily see competition as an implication of capitalism.

The capitalist system is as much cooperation as it is competition.

While on the marketing level there is direct competition between businesses, within each business venture there is an amazingly cooperative effort to design, manufacture, and sell a given product.


Just from what I've read in this thread, Social Darwinism sounds like a poor concept.

On the evolutionary level, Darwinism is the idea that the species most genetically advantaged to survive, will.

Unlike genetic code, societal standing can and does change. In addition, such traits as business savvy and charisma aren't likely determined by genetics.

 

I don't necessarily see competition as an implication of capitalism.

Apart from the obvious business competition that is a necessary feature of capitalism, there are also underlying dialectics which it produces (i.e., class antagonism, arising from bourgeois/proletariat means (or lack thereof) of production.

Just from what I've read in this thread, Social Darwinism sounds like a poor concept.

It is a poor concept. However, there is still some belief in it, even by members of this board (if you do a search for 'Darwinist,' I'm sure you'll turn up a post sooner or later in which someone claims to be a Social Darwinist).

Unlike genetic code, societal standing can and does change.

Yep!

- Scarlet.

 

TSB - Another well-argued post. Though I may not agree with you, I always enjoy reading your arguments.

In regards to the competition vs cooperation idea, theoretically it does seem that cooperation will improve the lot of the participants. The problem arises as you examine a society as a whole. On the level of a family or even a group of families you can easily understand how cooperation is preferrable. Once you look at groups larger than say a few hundred, I think that the analogy of the body and the organs. An arm off by itself cannot survive. The various groups (I have a hard time accepting the idea of "classes" within many of the Western democracies but that's another topic) of society are able to live without every other part.

One of the problems with cooperation taken to the extreme, which as I understand it is one of the basic tenets of Marxism, is that it has never been applied to an entire society. You can argue that the USSR, Yugoslavia, the PRC, even Cuba may have started out with the Marxist ideals, but to put it simply, the vanguard couldn't keep their hands off the goodies. Yes, the Paris commune was pretty close, but I've read conflicting accounts of that as well.

OK, so essentially we have several competing (!) political-economic systems with the two under discussion right now being Capitalism and Marxism. The first has had a century or so (depending on how you define it) and seems to be finally doing an OK job of dealing with society. The second system has never been successfully implemented on a large scale. How are we to know if Marxism really works? We don't. Should it be a surprise that people aren't excited about accepting an un-tried theory? No. From a pragmatist view, it makes sense to stick with competition.
(It sometimes appears that Communism seems to work in theory, but not in practice, and Capitalism doesn't always work in theory but does in practice.)

My thoughts on the subject...

 

TSB - Another well-argued post. Though I may not agree with you, I always enjoy reading your arguments.

Thank you very much.

The various groups (I have a hard time accepting the idea of "classes" within many of the Western democracies but that's another topic) of society are able to live without every other part.

Aye, it is a little tough to accept. However, their existence is undeniable. In some Western societies, they are blatant and unashamed - such as in Britain, where there is still a veritable aristocracy, and even the middle and lower classes are very aware of their status. In other countries, with great social mobility, like the USA, they are not quite as noticeable, but still in existence (the rough equivelant of an British aristocracy is the one which passes wealth, land and fame, often earned several generations back, down through the family, removing the need for work. Think expensive private schools, Ivy League Universities, cushy jobs that father manouevers you into, retirement at 45 and the country club thereafter. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but you know what I mean).

However, I am not aware of any portion of society that can function without the other. Let's look at some social groups:

The male gender - obviously cannot function without the female gender. Replication is impossible without it.

The family - cannot function without the social groups of education and work.

And some economic ones:

Business - cannot function without consumers, or the Government.

The bourgeois - cannot function without the proletariat, and vice-versa.

One of the problems with cooperation taken to the extreme, which as I understand it is one of the basic tenets of Marxism, is that it has never been applied to an entire society.

Ah, I see your point.

However, I believe that that was where the failure led within the USSR, for example. Communism is not supposed to be practiced with a nation-wide, or global, commune - it is supposed to be made up of many hundreds of thousands of individual communes, which operate on a small scale.

You can argue that the USSR, Yugoslavia, the PRC, even Cuba may have started out with the Marxist ideals, but to put it simply, the vanguard couldn't keep their hands off the goodies.

Yep. That's why true Marxist theory does not advocate a vanguard. Lenin was the proponent of that kind of Communism. George Orwell's Animal Farm addresses that - despite the fact he himself was a Communist, he wrote a damning metaphor of the Russian revolution (his main criticism was against submitting oneself to vanguard politics).

The first has had a century or so (depending on how you define it) and seems to be finally doing an OK job of dealing with society.

That's debatable. There is still mass poverty, even in so-called capitalist countries. And there is exploitation. Granted, it has made a lot of improvement, socially and economically (Marx himself admitted that, in the Manifesto), but I believe its illnesses are systemic, and can't be removed.

Should it be a surprise that people aren't excited about accepting an un-tried theory? No.

You're right, it doesn't surprise me. That doesn't mean there's any reason to stop pushing for progression, though. When feudalism morphed into capitalism, there were people who opposed that change, but it occured regardless. Now capitalism is clung to.

My thoughts on the subject...

Very reasonable, eloquent and concise points, too. Thanks.

- Scarlet.

 

So how do you discount the fact that everything that's happened in history is a result of survival of the fittest?

 

Everything?

 

So how do you discount the fact that everything that's happened in history is a result of survival of the fittest?

I discount it because I can't think of one instance, in history, where anything has occured socially or economically because of survival of the fittest.

You need to back up and evidence such a comment.

- Scarlet.

 

I discount it because I can't think of one instance, in history, where anything has occured socially or economically because of survival of the fittest.

How about the evolution of the US into a world power from a small group of colonies? Hmmm?

 

How about the evolution of the US into a world power from a small group of colonies? Hmmm?

The US' 'evolution' into a world power from a colony has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. I'm sure you know that evolution doesn't occur in one single animal, but occurs over a series of them. As it is, the US has had its system of Government longer than any other in the world, and has not gone through a series of changes or rebirths. It is comparable to a singular creature that adapts over time (as humans do, for example - you grow, and gain strength, etc.), not a 'survival-of-the-fittest'-esque kind of evolution.

Furthermore, as imperialism is now at an end, and world conflict is less frequent than before, it isn't a case of the weakest nation-states disappearing to be overtaken by the strongest ones. Read my post again, I address this issue.

- Scarlet.

 

...and has not gone through a series of changes or rebirths.

What would you call the Civil War?

Or the Women's Liberation movement late in the 19th and early in the 20th century in which women were allowed to vote?

Or the Civil Rights movement?

Or the "Greatest Generation" of WW II?

The US has evolved in a dangerous world as the world's preeminent power based upon our social and economic superiority over all other nations. Because this democratic republic works.

There has been social and economic revolution in this country many times in our history.

The world is still based upon survival of the fittest. If this was not so, then why would Africa would be such a dung hole to live in? They've been around the longest, shouldn't they be the most advanced?


On to the point:

As our viability as a society is dependant on maintaining culture and interdependence, and, as it has been proven in the past, it is cooperation that is the truest form of social and economic progress, as opposed to competition.

Cooperation is an integral part of the improvement of society, but competition is essential in improving society as well. Without competition, there is no drive for improvement or change. That is why captialism has been so successful - it is survival of the fittest companies based upon competition to put out the best products available for the average everyday consumer. Cooperation must occur between the people involved in society to not resort to violence when competing against each other.

Let's face it, the world is never going to be free of the poor. There will never be social (economic) equality in class structure for all. It is human nature to want to have the most for yourself and your family. That's just human, and that's why the idealistic notion that everyone can be given (by who? a government source or by cooperation? - an unlikely prospect) their equal share for equal work without upward mobility will never work and never has. That is why a classless society will never work.

 

I discount it because I can't think of one instance, in history, where anything has occured socially or economically because of survival of the fittest.

You need to back up and evidence such a comment.

I didn't think I'd have to back this up...I mean...let's look at any event in history. The weakest don't win. All wars are won by the fitter nation, all fights are won by the fittest opponent, all debates are won by the fittest debater, all species have adapted to their environments, thus surviving this long, which is survival of the fittest.

I mean, come on now...

 

What Vaderbait said.

 

"Survival of the fittest".

This was an alegory of sorts used by Darwin and subsequently everyone else to give an accurate and tangible idea as to what his theories of evolution meant. Those who are the strongest, fastest, toughest out in the jungle, will survive over those that aren't. But this is not quite accurate. It is those who have a trait that makes them more suited to an environment. When coupled with what is known about genetics, these traits that enable those animals to triumph over others can be passed on, ensuring the survival of that particular species.

But evolutionary theories do not take into consideration the effect that sentience and awareness has in the survival of a species.

Social Darwinism is a theory, grounded in bad science

Yes, this is true. Darwinistic evolution is based on the notion that 'improvements' come from those that are better adapted to living in the current conditions, and the only way that survival chances can be improved is through the mutations that are constant in living animals. No species can survive simply by willing that this is so, with the possible exception of humans. We have sentience, and are able to force changes to the environment that benifit our survival, but we can't do it ourselves. This isn't survival of the fittest, as we aren't improving ourselves in relation to the 'playing field', we are totally changing the rules.

This is why Social Darwinism is just a fantasy of those wishing to make a name for themselves. Society as a whole doesn't evolve through the survival of ideas and notions that are the best of the time. Any societal change has always involved the shift in paradigm of those at the decision making end of the spectrum, or the alteration in those people within society that make the decisions.

It is the embracing of different ideas of those in power, for the purpose of remaining in power (whether for noble or selfish intentions), or the alteration in those that are the decision makers through peaceful and/or violent means that lead to a change in society. It is the will of the people in a society that force its evolution, and which ever idea holds the most appeal to people, not which one will make the society as a whole better.

The weakest don't win. All wars are won by the fitter nation, all fights are won by the fittest opponent, all debates are won by the fittest debater, all species have adapted to their environments, thus surviving this long, which is survival of the fittest.

Yes, that is true, but only if you hold the definition of "fittest" to a wide generalisation of "has the advantage in at least one area/feat". I've seen fights won not by the strongest opponent, but by the smartest. I've seen fights won not by the smartest opponent, but by the fastest.

Yes, in the particular situation at hand, that person/country/group were the "fittest" (ie, winners), but that isn't the same as looking at evolutionary fitness. It doesn't come down to who is better in a single point in time, it is who is going to be able to survive the conditions that they are required to live in. Evolution also doesn't happen in a straight line, it can move back and forth. Some species have "de-evolved" before developing into the species best suited for a particular niche.

 

Darwin never coined the phrase "survival of the fittest". The phrase came from Hebert Spencer, who was one of the earliest proponants of SD.

 

True. Then does that surprise you that SB would support Spencer knowing his belief in Social-Democracy?

 

Social Darwinism is idiocy.

No it isn't.

.......to revive the theories of Hobbes and Malthus, the latter of whom argued that as increasing population must outgrow its food supply, it was "natural", and inevitable, to allow the weakest to starve.

That's how you get the population into balance. If there's just not enough food to go around, it follows that not everyone will be able to survive. So who are the ones who live and who are the ones who die?

Jonathan Swift was a main opposer of this so-called "scientific" theory, and satirised it savagely, saying in A Modest Proposal that, similarly, cannibalism could be justified in order to control overopulation.

That seems a bit extreme.

I always thought that economic rationalism would control overpopulation (hence the falling birth rates in most industrialised nations). And as for the third world, I believe they benefit from greater manpower as labour is the greatest commodity they have for economic development.

As I stated earlier, these ideas have been discredited extensively. First of all, they bear little or no relation to the 'Darwinism' of organic life, save, perhaps, a few misinterpetations (such as "survival of the fittest," which was intended to refer to, narrowly, how certain traits of animals were passed down. The popular misconception is that "fittest" is a synonym for 'progress,' or 'advancement.'

Agree.

(It is neither.) In fact, those who are best adapted to pass on their genes often do so through some sort of cooperative arrangement or even an equivalent of self-sacrifice for the next generation (note Robert Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation.)).

You mean human beings willingness to reproduce?

Furthermore, the leap from 'biological science,' i.e., hard fact and 'the unchangeable way of things,' fails to account for the increased consciousness of human beings, which allows them to make moral and cultural (more on the latter in a moment) decisions, without paying heed to their most natural instincts. Study of early society has also shown that our survival can be credited more to our cooperation and self-sacrifice, rather than a I-come-first-social-survival-of-the-fittest kind of doctrine.

Yes, but human beings co-operate as well as being self interested. Like sucker fish on sharks, we try to work in positions of mutual advantage.

Also, as the only animals with the capacity to create 'culture,' a thing which requires both social and economic cooperation,...

I think culture more has to do with aesthetics then co-operation..

cul·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klchr)
n.

The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
Intellectual and artistic activity and the works produced by it.

Development of the intellect through training or education.
Enlightenment resulting from such training or education.
A high degree of taste and refinement formed by aesthetic and intellectual training.


..humans obviously have no place giving a 'sink or swim' philosophy to society and economics. When we can develop complex social networks capable of supporting each other, and have been doing for thousands of years, it becomes obsolete to apply it to, first, individual humans acting in a social and economic sense, and second (and foremost), to social groups, economic organisations, etc.

The 'sink or swim' philosophy does apply though, as some individuals do not think, adapt,

 

I think it explains alot about what 19th century people thought about human nature.

Knowledge is cumulative. Society builds on the ideas and discoveries of the past and moves forward.

Dynamic, not static.