1
Social Darwinism Gerald Lee Wilson
Hello, welcome to this segment of “Learn More, Teach More,” as we journey through American History thinking about special events, themes, and Ideas. Ideas. They play an important part in history. Do ideas describe how we think about things, the way we act, or do ideas determine how we think about things and the way we act? Chicken or egg? This is a question that historians have long wrestled with. Today we want to talk about one of those ideas that has permeated our history since the latter part of the 19th century - Social Darwinism.
DARWIN In 1859, Charles Darwin published his work, On the Origin of the Species in which he argued for an evolutionary process. That is, that existing species, including human beings, had evolved through a long process of “natural selection” from simple forms of life to the most complex. The process represented a “struggle for existence” resulting in the “survival of the fittest.” The strong survived; the weak died out. The promulgation of this theory, as might be expected, created quite an uproar, dividing people into three groups: first, scientists who generally supported Darwin’s theory; second, clerics who were outraged by Darwin’s evolutionary claims since they appeared to be in conflict with the creation story as told in Genesis. This evolutionary theory removed humans from their “special status” as the crowning glory of God’s creation, creating a discontinuity between humans and God. Furthermore, this evolutionary theory changed the nature of nature, if you will, from harmony to struggle. Third and finally, there were some religious leaders and layman who tried to reconcile science and religion.
HERBERT SPENCER Darwin was a scientist whose theory dealt solely with biology- the natural world. It was not long, however, before some of what we now call “social scientists” saw the utility of Darwin's biological
2
evolutionary theory for their purposes. Herbert Spencer, like Darwin, an Englishman, was to be the bridge between Darwin and Social Darwinism. He took a biological theory and applied it to society saying that human society and institutions, like organisms, pass through the process of “natural selection,” thus the “survival of the fittest” applies to human society and institutions as well. At this point, Spencer makes what will turn out to be a crucial addition to Darwin's theory: evolution equals progress. If there is evolution, and evolution equals progress, then there should be no human intervention in the process. Governments should not intervene. Governments should exist solely for the purpose of protecting each individual and group while they work out their destiny. Let the weak die out. Individual freedom is the key here. This philosophy was readily accepted by the business interests and business mentality of the latter part of the 19th century in that it said, in effect, “let wealth and big business rule for accumulated wealth is the best evidence of fitness to rule.” Ideas need means of being dispersed and popularizers to spread the word. Darwinism found a means of being dispersed in Popular Science Monthly first published in 1872 and found popularizers in three men, John Fiske, William Graham Sumner, and Lester Frank Ward.
JOHN FISKE At Harvard, John Fiske lectured on Social Darwinism and tried to reconnect the disconnect between God and humans that evolution fostered by placing God in the process. Fiske said, in effect “All science adds up to progress, but linking it all is a master plan, a benevolent God.” By placing God in the process, Fiske was attempting to reconcile science and religion, Darwinism and Genesis.
WILLIAM GRAHAM SUMNER The second of these popularizers was William Graham Sumner, a Professor at Yale. Sumner can best be described as a representative of “Conservative Darwinism,” the idea that “competition promotes progress.” For Sumner, hard work promotes progress and one's chief mission in life should be to
3
accumulate capital. Two of his earlier books foreshadowed his best known book, Folkways, published in 1907. His first book, What the Social Classes Owe Each Other, can be summarized in one word: nothing. His second book contains a summary in the title: The Absurd Attempt to Make the World Over. Sumner’s philosophy of Social Darwinism was fully developed in Folkways. He was a radical proponent of the laissez-faire “leave it alone” philosophy. In Folkways, he argues that men are governed not by reason but by basic customs or folkways or mores. These come about through an evolutionary process over a long period of time. They represent what people were familiar with and what they wanted. The government should not interfere in this process. He saw two potential dangers in government interference, in governmental planning. First, heavy government involvement in the economy and the lives of the people might lead to self-serving groups seeking to control the government for their own purposes. Second, such groups and others might be captive of a deluded, rationalistic philosophy which proclaims the virtue of such ideas as equality and natural rights. No, societies are governed by customs or folkways and these should go on without government interference. Government exists to guarantee the liberty of individuals. Sumner synthesized three traditions in Western thought: 1. The Protestant Work Ethic, 2. Classical Economics, laissez-faire. Adam Smith’s self-interest as the invisible hand in the market place regulating the law of supply and demand, and 3. Darwin’s Natural Selection, biological laws justifying the free market.
LESTER FRANK WARD Yet, not all of the thinkers who accepted the concept of Social Darwinism came to the same conclusions about its implications. Lester Frank Ward, a man who came from a background of poverty, was self-educated and held a government clerkship for forty years, accepted evolution and followed Spencer to a degree. But, Ward was opposed to the rigid determinism implied in Spencer and Fiske. Ward said that man's mind could control the evolutionary process - and herein man was different from animals -
4
for as he said, in his major work Dynamic Sociology, published in 1883, “Bears have claws, men have intelligence.” Since men can control the evolutionary process, then they can substitute cooperation for competition. Human beings make progress by protecting the weak. So Sumner’s “Conservative Darwinism” with its idea of “competition promoting progress “is changed by Ward into a “Reform Darwinism” where “cooperation” replaces “competition” and can control the evolutionary process in society. The agent controlling this “cooperative process” is, of course, the government. This being the case, increased government action in the economy and in the lives of the people is both necessary and desirable. He emphasized the role of education and cooperative planning in his concept of Social Darwinism. The bottom line for Ward was evolution can be channeled, can be controlled.
Conclusion As I said in the beginning, the ideas of Social Darwinism have been pervasive and persuasive in the last century or so. To be sure, we don't run around talking about Social Darwinism and Sumner's “Conservative Darwinism” and Ward’s “Reform Darwinism,” but they really are part of daily thought in our time. In broad strokes and general terms, political conservatives follow the philosophy of William Graham Sumner and political liberals follow Lester Frank Ward. For each asks, what is the role of government in the economy and the lives of the people? Conservatives, certainly in economic issues, tend to accept Sumner’s laissez-faire and liberals favor Ward's stronger government action. Sumner's ideas are reflected in Ayn Rand’s novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and Ward's ideas may be carried on by social critics and, at this point in time, the popular TV show, The West Wing. Let me bring this to a close by one simple example of the difference between Sumner's “Conservative Darwinism” and Ward's “Reform Darwinism.” At one stage in my educational pursuits, I lived in a men’s graduate dorm. One fall, the game of monopoly became popular. There were four of us who began playing, and it so happens that two were political “liberals” and two were political “conservatives.” We evolved a process where we took turns being “President,” and the President had enormous power. When a conservative was in power, the game was played pretty much according to the
5
rules. The accumulation of capital at others’ expense, “the survival of the fittest” as Sumner would have it, was the object. When a liberal was “President,” he would do such things as nationalize the railroads and utilities with the income going to the government, place a heavy tax on houses and hotels owned by the “rich” players, and the less successful players would receive a $500-$1000 payment when they passed Go instead of the $200 presented by the game’s rules. Incidentally, when the liberals were in power, we had to print extra money. When the conservatives came into power, they reversed what the liberals had done and returned to the regular rules. In regular Monopoly, the point is to drive everyone else out of the game-the “survival of the fittest” – “Conservative Darwinism.” In “Reform Monopoly,” the point is to keep everyone in the game. “Reform Darwinism.” Protecting the weak as Ward would say. Therein lies the tale of Social Darwinism in the last century or so.