Social Darwinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Socially Darwinian)
Jump to: navigation, search

Social Darwinism is a modern name given to various theories of society that emerged in the United States and Europe in the 1870s, and which sought to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics.[1][2] Social Darwinists generally argue that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. Different social Darwinists have different views about which groups of people are the strong and the weak, and they also hold different opinions about the precise mechanism that should be used to promote strength and punish weakness. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism, while others motivated ideas of eugenics, racism, imperialism,[3] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[4][5]

The term social Darwinism gained widespread currency when used after 1944 by opponents of these earlier concepts. Today, because of the negative connotations of the theory of social Darwinism, especially after the atrocities of the Second World War, few people would describe themselves as social Darwinists and the term is generally seen as pejorative.[6]

Creationists have often maintained that social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to make the weak perish—is a logical consequence of "Darwinism" (the theory of natural selection in biology). Biologists and historians have stated that this is a naturalistic fallacy, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society. Social Darwinism owed more to Herbert Spencer's ideas, together with genetics and a Protestant Nonconfirmist tradition with roots in Hobbes and Malthus, than to Charles Darwin's research.[7] While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution.[8]

Scholars debate the extent to which the various social Darwinist ideologies reflect Charles Darwin's own views on human social and economic issues. His writings have passages that can be interpreted as opposing aggressive individualism, while other passages appear to promote it.[9] Some scholars argue that Darwin's view gradually changed and came to incorporate views from the leading social interpreters of his theory such as Spencer,[10] but Spencer's Lamarckian evolutionary ideas about society were published before Darwin first published his theory, and both promoted their own conceptions of moral values. Spencer supported laissez-faire capitalism on the basis of his Lamarckian belief that struggle for survival spurred self-improvement which could be inherited.[11]

Origin of the term[edit]

The term first appeared in Europe in 1877,[12] and around this time it was used by sociologists opposed to the concept.[13] The term was popularized in the United States in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter who used it in the ideological war effort against fascism to denote a reactionary creed which promoted competitive strife, racism and chauvinism. Hofstadter later also recognized (what he saw as) the influence of Darwinist and other evolutionary ideas upon those with collectivist views, enough to devise a term for the phenomenon, "Darwinist collectivism."[3] Before Hofstadter's work the use of the term "social Darwinism" in English academic journals was quite rare.[14] In fact,


—Jeff Riggenbach[1]

The term "social Darwinism" has rarely been used by advocates of the supposed ideologies or ideas; instead it has almost always been used (pejoratively) by its opponents, with one modern exception. The term "social Darwinism" is self-ascribed in the case of the Church of Satan and modern Satanism (see chapter heading "Contemporary Proponents of Social Darwinism")[6][15][16] The term draws upon the common use of the term Darwinism, which has been used to describe a range of evolutionary views, but in the late 19th century was applied more specifically to natural selection as first advanced by Charles Darwin to explain speciation in populations of organisms. The process includes competition between individuals for limited resources, popularly but inaccurately described by the phrase "survival of the fittest," a term coined by sociologist Herbert Spencer.


Theories and origins[edit]

The term Darwinism had been coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in his April 1860 review of On the Origin of Species,[17] and by the 1870s it was used to describe a range of concepts of evolutionism or development, without any specific commitment to Charles Darwin's own theory.[18]

The first use of the phrase "social Darwinism" was in Joseph Fisher's 1877 article on The History of Landholding in Ireland which was published in the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society.[12] Fisher was commenting on how a system for borrowing livestock which had been called "tenure" had led to the false impression that the early Irish had already evolved or developed land tenure;[19]


— Fisher 1877.[19]





Social Darwinists[edit]













Darwinism and hypotheses of social change[edit]

Further information: Social evolution

"Social Darwinism" was first described by Oscar Schmidt of the University of Strasbourg, reporting at a scientific and medical conference held in Munich in 1877. He noted how socialists, although opponents of Darwin's theory, nonetheless used it to add force to their political arguments. Schmidt's essay first appeared in English in Popular Science in March 1879.[27] There followed an anarchist tract published in Paris in 1880 entitled "Le darwinisme social" by Émile Gautier. However, the use of the term was very rare — at least in the English-speaking world (Hodgson, 2004)[28]— until the American historian Richard Hofstadter published his influential Social Darwinism in American Thought (1944) during World War II.





United States[edit]








Social Darwinism was formally introduced to China through the translation by Yan Fu of Huxley's Evolution and Ethics, in the course of an extensive series of translations of influential Western thought.[35] Yan's translation strongly impacted Chinese scholars because he added national elements not found in the original. He understood Spencer's sociology as "not merely analytical and descriptive, but prescriptive as well," and saw Spencer building on Darwin, whom Yan summarized thus:

Peoples and living things struggle for survival. At first, species struggle with species; they as [people] gradually progress, there is a struggle between one social group and another. The weak invariably become the prey of the strong, the stupid invariably become subservient to the clever."[36]



Nazi Germany[edit]

Alfred Rosenberg in 1939

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—"strength" referring to those social forces void of virtue or principle.[38] Key proponents were Alfred Rosenberg, who was hanged later at Nuremberg.

The argument that Nazi ideology was strongly influenced by social Darwinist ideas is often found in historical and social science literature.[39] For example, the Jewish philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development from a politically indifferent scientific Darwinism via social Darwinist ethics to racist ideology.[40]

By 1985, the argument has been taken up by opponents of evolutionary theory.[7] Such claims have been presented by creationists such as Jonathan Sarfati.[41][42][undue weight? ] Intelligent design creationism supporters have promoted this position as well. For example, it is a theme in the work of Richard Weikart, who is a historian at California State University, Stanislaus, and a senior fellow for the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute.[43] It is also a main argument in the 2008 intelligent-design/creationist movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. These claims are widely criticized within the academic community.[44][45][46][47][48][49] The Anti-Defamation League has rejected such attempts to link Darwin's ideas with Nazi atrocities, and has stated that "Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry."[50]



Contemporary Proponents of Social Darwinism[edit]

The concept of social Darwinism and eugenics, by those who attribute the term to themselves, is prevalent within modern Satanism. Social Darwinist ideas are presented throughout The Satanic Bible, authored by Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan and 20th century Satanism. LaVey describes Satanism as "a religion based on the universal traits of man,"[52] and humans are described throughout as inherently carnal and animalistic. Each of the seven deadly sins is described as part of human's natural instinct, and are thus advocated.[53] Social Darwinism is particularly noticeable in The Book of Satan, where LaVey uses portions of Ragnar Redbeard's Might is Right, though it also appears throughout in references to man's inherent strength and instinct for self-preservation.[54][55] LaVeyan Satanism has been described as "institutionalism of Machiavellian self-interest" because of many of these themes.[56] The Church of Satan webpage heading “Satanism: The Feared Religion," by Magus Peter H. Gilmore, states, “...contemporary Satanism[...]is: a brutal religion of elitism and social Darwinism that seeks to re-establish the reign of the able over the idiotic...” and, “Satanists also seek to enhance the laws of nature by concentrating on fostering the practice of eugenics.”[57]

Criticism and controversy[edit]

Multiple incompatible definitions[edit]

Social Darwinism has many definitions, and some of them are incompatible with each other. As such, social Darwinism has been criticized for being an inconsistent philosophy, which does not lead to any clear political conclusions. For example, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states:


Nazism, eugenics, fascism, imperialism[edit]

Social Darwinism was predominantly found in laissez-faire societies where the prevailing view was that of an individualist order to society. As such, social Darwinism supposed that human progress would generally favor the most individualistic races, which were those perceived as stronger. A different form of social Darwinism was part of the ideological foundations of Nazism and other fascist movements. This form did not envision survival of the fittest within an individualist order of society, but rather advocated a type of racial and national struggle where the state directed human breeding through eugenics.[59] Names such as "Darwinian collectivism" or "Reform Darwinism" have been suggested to describe these views, in order to differentiate them from the individualist type of social Darwinism.[3]

Some pre-twentieth century doctrines subsequently described as social Darwinism appear to anticipate state imposed eugenics[3] and the race doctrines of Nazism. 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.[50][43]

As mentioned above, social Darwinism has often been linked to nationalism and imperialism.[60] During the age of New Imperialism, the concepts of evolution justified the exploitation of "lesser breeds without the law" by "superior races."[60] 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.[60] With this attitude, Europeans, except for Christian missionaries, seldom adopted the customs and languages of local people under their empires.[60]

Peter Kropotkin – Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution[edit]






See also[edit]


  5. ^ Bowler 2003, pp. 298–299
  6. ^ a b Hodgson 2004, pp. 428–430
  9. ^ Bowler 2003, pp. 300–301
  10. ^ Gregory Claeys. 2000. The "Survival of the Fittest" and the Origins of Social Darwinism. Journal of the History of Ideas , Vol. 61, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 223–240
  11. ^ Bowler 2003, pp. 301–302
  12. ^ a b Fisher, Joseph (1877). "The History of Landholding in Ireland". Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (London) V: 228–326. JSTOR 3677953. , as quoted in the Oxford English Dictionary
  14. ^ Hodgson 2004, pp. 445–446
  15. ^ "The Church of Satan webpage heading "Satanism: The Feared Religion, by Magus Peter H. Gilmore," states, "...contemporary Satanism[...]is: a brutal religion of elitism and social Darwinism that seeks to re-establish the reign of the able over the idiotic..." and, "Satanists also seek to enhance the laws of nature by concentrating on fostering the practice of eugenics."". 
  16. ^ Bannister, 1979; Hodgson, 2004
  18. ^ Bowler 2003, p. 197
  19. ^ a b Fisher 1877, pp. 249–250
  20. ^ Hodgson
  21. ^ Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 598
  22. ^ Darwin 1882, p. 134
  29. ^ Descent of Man, chapter 4 ISBN 1-57392-176-9
  30. ^
  34. ^ Eugenics in Japan: some ironies of modernity, 1883–1945 by Otsubo S, Bartholomew JR. Sci Context. 1998 Autumn-Winter;11(3–4):545–65.
  36. ^ Ibid.
  37. ^ Ibid., 414-15.
  40. ^ Arendt, H.: Elements of Totalitarianism, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: New York 1951. pp. 178–179
  46. ^ "Review: Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler". H-German. September 2004. Retrieved 2007-05-17. 
  47. ^ a b "Review: Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler". H-Ideas. June 2005. Retrieved 2007-05-17. 
  52. ^ LaVey 2005, p. 53.
  53. ^ LaVey 2005, p. 46.
  54. ^ Lewis 2002, p. 4.
  55. ^ LaVey 2005, p. 47.
  56. ^ Taub & Nelson 1993, p. 528.
  57. ^ "The Church of Satan webpage heading "Satanism: The Feared Religion", by Magus Peter H. Gilmore". 
  62. ^ Chomsky, Noam (July 8, 2011). "Noam Chomsky – on Darwinism". 

Primary sources[edit]

Secondary sources[edit]

Further reading[edit]

  • Bannister, Robert (April 27, 1989). Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought. Temple University Press. ISBN 0-87722-566-4. 
  • Sammut-Bonnici, T. & Wensley, R. (2002), 'Darwinism, Probability and Complexity: Transformation and Change Explained through the Theories of Evolution', ' 'International Journal of Management Reviews' ', 4(3) pp. 291–315.

External links[edit]