Social Darwinism - Essay Example

?Social Darwinism has almost always been used as a negative term. It has been seen as the root cause of the political and social unrest all over the world in that past century. As Bellomy points out, the term has always been used as an epithet if we look at the history of its usage, to represent everything evil such as warfare, racism and imperialism (Bellomy, 1984). The impact of this term on social science and political ideology has been argued to be essential to assess the use of such terms in discourse and the history of ideas that they may represent. Hence, it is important that we first look at what meaning was given to Social Darwinism by different theorists and how it became a significant theory in history in order to delve into a deeper analysis of it. “Social Darwinism” is a term used to refer to the application of ideas and concepts applied to the social world which are allegedly derived from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution (Leonard, 2009). There is much controversy surrounding Social Darwinism, its historical significance, its usage and applicability and most importantly its association with some of the known social scientist in history such as Darwin and Spencer. The debate around the definition of the term has in most cases revolved around whether or not Social Darwinism came out of the works of Darwin and other theorists that wrote about the role of biology to explain the social hierarchies present during that era, as Europe, America and other continents witnessed the aftermath of industrialization. There are basically two types of approaches to the definition of the term that have been put forward to explain the different approaches theorists have taken in order to explain the term (Crook, 1996). The “generalist” approach basically refers to Social Darwinism as the analysis of social inequality by the help of evolutionary and developmental ideas using Darwinian terminologies such as “survival of the fittest” but not explicitly relying on the original works of Darwin (Weiler). The second type known as the “restrictionist” approach in contrast, argues that a mere use of phrases that represent the work of a theorist such as “survival of fittest” does not define the theorist as a Social Darwinist (Weiler). According to the broad definition, the theory came to denote racism, imperialism and capitalism during what came to be known as the Gilded Age where, whilst the poor suffered the consequences of Industrialization in the American society, those that owned the factories and benefited from the wealth they were acquiring, although fewer in number, used Social Darwinism to justify why such notions as “survival of the fittest” put forward by Darwin and Spencer made it logical for only those that were biologically gifted or a so called “superior race” to be market leaders and worthy of acquiring the most wealth and superior positions in politics (Hodgson 2004). There is also debate on when the term was first used and while the works of theorists like Hofstadter gave a strict definition of who the Social Darwinist are, others such as Hodgson have argued that these theorists present as facts what are basically just labels (Hodgson 2004). The history of the term is a controversial issue. While some say that the term was first used in the late 1800s and was associated with known social theorists like Spencer and Sumner (Wieler), for example Spencer’s Synthetic Philosophy is one of the first pieces of literature where the term can be traced (Hodgson 2004), others argue that Spencer never used the term Social Darwinism and that he is deemed one of the founders of the theory only based on associations made between the theory and Spencer’s work (Hodgson, 2004). This paper will aim to present a critique of the theory “Social Darwinism” as presented in the book “Social Darwinism in American Thought” by Hofstadter that proved to be a very influential piece on the theory. In order to do so I will look at the work of revisionists such as Hodgson and Leonard who both argue that Hofstadter’s first book “Social Darwinism in American Thought”, played a key role in promoting Social Darwinism not as belonging to a particular school of thought but in essence associating it to anyone who used phrases like “survival of the fittest”, “natural selection and “struggle for existence” (Hodgson 2004). It is argued here that biology is as important as environment in explaining human and social development and hence can not be separated or completely removed from Social Sciences as Hofstadter suggested in his book. In order to understand why Hofstadter’s book played a key role in shaping the meaning and significance of Social Darwinism we should first analyze through the work of Hodgson the historical significance of the term. Hodgson, by looking at how the term Social Darwinism appeared in academic journals on an electronic database called JSTOR, argues that unlike earlier historiographies of the theory such as that presented by Hofstadter, the appearance of the term Social Darwinism is rare in the journals prior to Hofstadter’s book (Hodgson, 2004). He argues that Spencer, Sumner and Darwin’s theories although based on evolution were not entirely alike (Hodgson, 2004). Spencer coined the term “survival of the fittest and it is Darwin who used Spencer’s term instead of “natural selection” while Sumner who is also called a Social Darwinist by Hofstadter, did not borrow much from either Spencer or Darwin’s work (Hodgson, 2004). Hodgson also argues that there are various theorists who would argue that Darwin’s Evolutionary theory was not exclusively based on biological terms but could also be used to analyze the evolution of social systems (Hodgson 2004). In order to refuter Hofstadter’s explanation, Hodgson also gives examples of British economists such as Walter Bagehot (1872) and Henry Drummond (1894) who adopted the Darwinian Theory both represented liberal democracy and social reform along with the role cultural environment plays in human development which is clearly against the general definition of Social Darwinism that Hofstadter adopted (Hodgson 2004). Hodgson also argues that the origin of the term Social Darwinism was not Britain or America but Continental Europe where alongside anarchists using the term were theorists like Gautier who used Darwinian Theory to promote social cooperation and condemn those who used the theory to promote brutal competition (Hodgson 2004). According to Hodgson’s research Darwin was neither a racist, nor an imperialist, in fact his work has been associated to everything from liberalism to conservatism and from war to pacifism (Hodgson 2004) which clearly shows that attributing the much acclaimed Darwinian Theory to be the basic gist of Social Darwinism would be like a generalization. Hodgson goes to show that the term Social Darwinism rarely appeared in searches up until 1914, from 1914 to 1924 the few times that Social Darwinism comes up is to discuss the first World War and its consequences and then the term was non existent up until 1935 (Hodgson 2004). Also none of the journals till that era mentioned Spencer or Sumner as Social Darwinists (Hodgson 2004). It was only post World War II that Hofstadter published his book in 1944 that associated Social Darwinism to these sociologists (Hodgson 2004) that JSTOR showed citations where Social Darwinism and the Darwinian Theory were discussed together as having a strong association with Darwin, Spencer and Sumner’s work (Hodgson 2004). Hofstadter argued that biology should be completely removed from social sciences because explanation of human action and culture in biological terms was bound to cause problems (Hofstadter, 1944). Thus, Hofstadter’s argument for the complete eradication of biology from social sciences meant that he believed that if not biology, it was entirely culture that shaped human actions and society (Leonard 2009). In this way Hofstadter was supportive of entirely leftist ideologies of free market opposition and state control over the political and economic sphere and that biology should be kept away from social science (Leonard 2009). While other progressive era scholars that Hofstadter in fact admired used biological arguments to explain their own reforms, he completely overlooked the notion of a middle argument that is not bent on either one extreme of a completely biological explanation to that of complete cultural determinism (Leonard 2009). Leonard also points out that Hofstadter declared Social Darwinism as a term that had disappeared in America after the Second World War (Leonard 2009). Hodgson goes to show that in fact, it was after this book was published that the term Social Darwinism was increasingly found in journals (Hodgson, 2004). The fact that Hofstadter’s book was mentioned 23.6 percent of the times where the term Social Darwinism was cited post 1944 goes to show the impact his book had on the term, its definition, meaning and usage (Hodgson, 2004). There was a shift in the meaning of Social Darwinism after 1940, while earlier it used to refer to imperialism, militarism and racism, post 1940 it began to categorize theorist like Spencer and Sumner as Social Darwinists (Hodgson, 2004). Hodgson argues that this view has been supported by the works of other revisionist like Bannister and Bellomy (Hodgson, 2004). As Bannister points out that the significance of Social Darwinism as an intellectual movement had been extremely exaggerated (Bannister, 1988). Both Bellomy and Bannister argue that Social Darwinism was unknown to English readers before the progressive era (Hodgson, 2004). Social Darwinism according to Bellomy (1984) and Bannister (1988) was used to refer more to competition between different groups rather than individuals. Hofstadter argues in his book that the American businessmen in the Gilded Ages readily accepted Darwinian Theory to their own benefit in order to defend the free market system (Hofstadter 1944). However, as Leonard points out, instead of using Darwinian Theory as a support, the American Businessmen much rather relied on religion and common good to defend the free market in that era (Leonard 2009). Thus, even if there was free market and competition present in the Gilded Age, it can certainly not be concluded that they were using Darwinian Theory to defend any of their ulterior motives to manipulate the masses (Leonard 2009). The confusion and controversy attached to the term Social Darwinism can be easily gauged from the defense that is presented in almost all of these works not to defend the theory in itself but who Social Darwinists are or were and who should be called the founding father of the theory. Hofstadter tried to make these associations in his book but as Hodgson and Leonard point out this only caused much more confusion and added to the popularity of the theory with false associations to some well acclaimed pieces in Social Sciences, such as Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (Leonard, 2009) which is not where the theory can originally be traced and doing so is like making a generalization. Hofstadter’s book was written in 1944 and the arguments he made in it were surrounded by confusion as Leonard who published his article as a critique to Hofstadter’s work in 2009 clears out. Leonard argues that Hofstadter himself is split into two while writing the book and his later works show his own change in perception regarding the proclamations he made in the book (Leonard, 2009). Hodgson and Leonard both present their work with clear evidence of the history and applicability of Social Darwinism rather than making generalizations. Looking at the arguments made in the works of these three theorists one can not conclude whether Social Darwinism can in fact be claimed to be the root cause of some of the worst genocides, political and economic clashes that the world witnessed in the past century. It can be argued that while Social Darwinism can be used as a tool to explain these events, it can not necessarily be a cause of these events as the history surrounding the theory shows no connection between the events and birth of Social Darwinism as a school of thought in Social Sciences. It is a theory based on weak grounds and its association with thinkers in Gilded Age is well refuted in works by revisionist in recent times. It is strongly argued within these pieces that whoever associates the works of Spencer and Sumner to Social Darwinism has not read the works of these writers carefully and is making assumptions that have no solid grounding in Social Science. Therefore, having read these pieces there are a few conclusions about the meaning given to the theory Social Darwinism that can be made. First of all, the term Social Darwinism carries with it a number of myths with regards to its origin and implication. Some theorists that it labeled Social Darwinists simply because they presented theories that used biology to explain human action and evolution does not mean that they over looked the role of culture and environment in determining human action and social interaction as claimed by the theory and neither can these theorists be termed racists or imperialists. Social Darwinism was a concept that came up in the first part of the twentieth century to describe the current political and economic trends in different parts of the world at that time such as imperialism, racism, and warfare. It originated not from America but from Continental Europe and slowly found its way to Europe and America before the First World War. Hofstadter’s book played a key role in creating the myths and labels that were attached to the works of Spencer, Sumner and Darwin which only instigate confusion with regards to the origins of Social Darwinism and its associations. The definition of Social Darwinism has been re-analyzed by revisionists who argue that a theory can have multiple applicability’s and hence can not be attributed to belong to a particular school of thought based on a few catch phrases that it has used. Thus, Darwinism and Social Darwinism are essentially two different concepts that cannot be attributed to originate from a single source or have been influenced by that source. Over the last century the meaning and significance of Social Darwinism has gone through massive changes and our understanding of the theory can only be made after looking at all eras rather reading seminal pieces like Hofstadter’s “Social Darwinism in American Thought”. Works Cited: Bannister, R.C. (1988): social darwinism: science and myth in anglo-american social thought. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Bellomy, D.C. (1984) social darwinism, revisited. Perspectives in american history N.S. 1,1-29. Crook, P. (1996) social darwinism: the concept, history of europe and Ideas 22(4), 261–74. Hodgson, G.M. (2004). social darwinism in anglophone academic journals: a contribution to the history of the term. Journal of Historical Sociology, 17(4), Hofstadter, R. (1944). social darwinism in american thought. Boston: Beacon Press. Leonard, T.C. (2004). origins of the myth of social darwinism: the ambiguous legacy of richard hofstadter's social darwinism in american thought. Journal of Economic Behavior and organization, 71, 37-51. Weiler, B. (n.d.). Social Darwinism. Retrieved March 25, 2011, from www.zeppelin-university.de/deutsch/../Social_Darwinism.pdf. Read More