Social Darwinism: solid science or psycho-babble?
Asked by
ETpro (
34605
)
November 11th, 2010
Whether you believe Darwin had it right about the evolution of the species or not, do you believe there is any truth to social Darwinism the idea that natural selection does and indeed should apply to social order among mankind? The idea was first advanced by Joseph Fischer in 1877, and by the early 1900s it had gained a significant patina of being scientific fact, even though there was never any sound science underlying it. Perhaps it just fit well with the nation’s psychological needs after the civil war. It justified the emerging social order during the gilded age. There was nothing wrong with robber barons getting to the top by tooth and claw. That’s just the way society was designed by nature, the reasoning ran. That must have sounded pretty good to the best and brightest, who stood the best chance of profiting from a society so ordered.
Yale University Professor William Graham Sumner was an early and vocal proponent of Social Darwinism in America. He taught the philosophy to several generations of the young nation’s most powerful and influential business and political leaders. It is now deeply infused in our national meme, even for those of us who never give it a thought. So let’s do give it some thought. Is survival of the fittest the way to order a society? Should the weak be tossed under the bus? Is that a political decision, a financial one, or is it actual science? Where do you think society should draw the line on protecting the least among us?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
68 Answers
Dangerous, DANGEROUS psychobabble.
We agree on a lot of things.
Even referring to “Social Darwinism” as “psychobabble” gives too much credence to a notion that was rightly discredited decades ago. There is psychobabble that more supportable than the theories of Social Darwinism. We shouldn’t even still be having this debate on any level. That’s how wrong, ridiculous and unscientific the notion of Social Darwinism is.
Even more dangerous, dangerous, dangerous than psychobabble.
I had to add another dangerous, what choice did I have?.
@lillycoyote Surely with that rousing rebuke of the theory, we can find at least one brave soul willing to come to its defense. Where is Ayn Rand when you need her?
Social Darwinism is as true a phenomenon as it gets. It is the way of the world and always has been. You may not like it, and put funny names to it, but regardless, it is a real issue. And it has always been with us.
However, before one loses faith in humanity, or accuses me of being shortsighted, consider the long term ramifications of Social Darwinism.
Though the rich and powerful may indeed think nothing of throwing the common man “under the bus”, and have every power and privilege to do so, we must also acknowledge what counterbalances are in place to even the score. Social Darwinism is also the very mechanism that allows the common man to rise up against the rich and powerful to foster the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Civil Rights Movement, Ghandi’s Quit India Movement, and even the eventual Christian overthrow of Rome.
Yes, Social Darwinism is a fact of human life. But it’s a two way street.
Well… I think that natural selection has led us to the society we have now..
If we are only talking about the wealthy and powerful side of this coin ..I believe social darwinism was even more dangerous than simple psychobabble. It lent an ear to the incredibly ignorant notion that possession (including owning people) and wealth were necessary for survival. That, to have these things, meant power and superiority.
On an added note: @RealEyesRealizeRealLies makes a good point ..there are are two sides to the social darwinism coin.
Every time you hear a story of Corporate or Government corruption, that is Social Darwinism at play. Why else do you think they are doing it? They want to elevate their status up the food chain.
I think that what many fail to call “social darwinism” because of the pejorative nature of the term is what has now been recast as “personal accountability.”
Personal accountability is only valid as an argument against assistance if we can demonstrate that the population in need had an actual, informed, and practicable free choice. Unfortunately, rarely do we look into that. Therefore, it becomes their fault that they’re stupid, fat, poor…etc.
There are worthy lessons to learn from nature, for example, only consuming what is necessary, why don’t we follow that example from the natural world?
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies It’s true that if we rise to the top by fighting our way there tooth and claw, there is always the risk that some bigger, meaner tiger will take us down. Don’t you think, though, that if the drive to succeed leads us to be the next Bernie Madoff, neither the society’s nor our own best interests are really served?
@iamthemob Personal Accountability is a more palatable way of presenting the idea, and one very difficult to argue with. Whenever you need a helping hand, you’ll find one on the end of each arm. But leaving people without boots to pull themselves up by their own bootdtraps costs society perhaps more than it saves.
No one may strive with the man who does not strive.
I think it’s true but I also think it’s happenning at all levels of society, not just the rich and powerful vs the downtrodden proletariat.
Human beings are aggressive, violent and selfish because we breed ourselves to be that way. Those who are less aggressive, less violent, less selfish, don’t get to enter their genes into the gene-pool so much. If you doubt, watch a nerd and a jock both trying to date the same girl, and see which one’s more successful.
@downtide – that’s a slightly concerning, fairly large logical leap. I don’t understand how one supports the other, and if so, how it’s not a weak analogy.
There is no system of ideas that would qualify as an “ism” attached to Darwin.
Darwin merely answered the question “Why are there different species of animals. Why not just one?”
Since “Darwinism” does not exist, then a modified version “Social Darwinism” does not exist either.
But is is worse than psycho-babble. It is sinister politico-speak.
References to Social Darwinism in our time are usually made by collectivist politicians who can not come up with a valid moral justification for stealing money from one group and giving it to another for the sake of constituency building.
Of course it exists! You have to call taking care of the weak and infirm who would otherwise perish in a natural selection state of being something. Of course liberals would discount it as psychobabble because it implies a socialistic state of affairs that provide programs and support structures that allows for sick, infirm and crazy people to survive and even procreate and who contribute little or nothing to the support or growth of the herd that provides for them.
The rich and conservatives would also discount it as psychobabble, because it indicts them of exploitation of these people in order to maintain and even further their lavish lifestyles. Without the the poor and weak to do their dirty work their fortunes would wither. In both instances this same group of the weak can be manipulated for political gain.
What will be interesting to see is how this Social Darwinism theory “evolves” as we are able to create perfect “super Humans” with the manipulation of our genomes. Conceivably there may not be the weak, sick and crazy in the societies of the future.
Social Darwinism isn’t the process of ignoring the poor due to a “survival of the fittest” mentality – the issue is not whether such a thing happens or not.
Social Darwinism, rather, is the theory that “survival of the fittest” in the civilized context is as natural as it is in the natural world. It is the analogizing of the evolution of species into a cultural framework. Therefore, it provides, if true, a moral justification for the dismissal and even intentional eradication of “lesser populations.” The people who are successful in society are successful because that’s the natural order.
The problems, of course, with the theory are many. First, the concept of “survival of the fittest” is kind of, in my opinion, a bastardization of the pressure of natural selection. Organisms that are more suited to the environment are more likely to survive, and therefore a higher and higher percentage of the population carry the traits of those most suited organisms. In the end, due to natural selection, we have a more well suited but generally uniform organism.
In the social context, the selection is neither natural (as natural selection implies an undirected nature), and it results in not a more efficient uniformity but in maintaining diversity. If something similar to natural selection were at work in the realm of human civilization, the result should be a more even and “better” society. Instead, we see the opposite.
So, so scary.
@downtide Um… you are asuming that the female in question has no say in the outcome of who “gets” her. I personally prefer a man with brains to a fist first man. Your generalization is far too broad to address, but your first position is false.
Aggression in the wild is necessry for survival. When a bird lays three eggs, the first egg statistically contains more testoserone then the second, the secod contains more than the third. If the parents cannot find enough food for three, the stronger, more aggrssive chick is fed first, then the second. The bird does not say; “Now, that’s not fair, save some for your little brother!” Eventually the third with the least amount of testoserone and aggresison is pushed out of the nest and dies.
Our society has no need for this mentality. We care for those who cannot care for themselves. Or we are supposed to according to the rules of our society. It is another aspect of humanity that sets us apart from animals.
But we have the option of rising above instinct, changiong our migratory patterns, altering our environment to suit ourselves.
To use nature as an excuse for our aggression is ill spoken.
@Trillian actually I was thinking that the female is more likely to choose a jock-type than a nerd-type, because the more “mascline” qualities are generally more attractive. Women tend not to like weak, feminine men. That preference is in itself a genetic trait.
@downtide – you really need to support that. It’s seems grossly oversimplified.
It is a proven fact that females tend to prefer the healthiest males that are available to them. Looks, money, intelligence are all secondary to the quality of health. This is a genetic proposition for it increases the odds that a gene pool with survive.
@downtide Fortunately we nerds have the occasional Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison and Mark Zuckerberg to keep our nerdy genes in the pool and swimming. Why I myself have managed to father 3 kids and now have 11 grandchildren and counting. Did you know that the over half of all professional athletes who make tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in a brief career are bankrupt within five years of retiring from sports? So now who’s got the mean genes—huh? :-)
@josie “References to Social Darwinism in our time are usually made by collectivist politicians who can not come up with a valid moral justification for stealing money from one group and giving it to another for the sake of constituency building.” If there is any truth to that claim, and thinking back over speeches I have heard I cannot find any, I would guess it would be because social Darwinism was used to justify imperialism, the age of the robber barons, apartheid, and political excesses of every kind where the strong exploit the weak for their own benefit.
@Cruiser That seems to present a balanced view. Oddly, it conclude that social Darwinism is as real as Gravity but must be labeled as psycho-babble by all who recognize it. Isn’t that odd?
@iamthemob Exactly right. Social Darwinism has been used to justify the most outrageous forms of racial stereotyping such as apartheid, it was the rationale for 19th century and early 20th century imperialism, and for the abuses the Communist system inflicted on its people in order to secure an extravagant lifestyle for the communist bosses who saw themselves as “just there to save the proletariat.” Darwin spoke of adaptations that fit the given environment’s pressures. It could be just as true that the John Galt’s in a gentile society would be shunned in the reproductive race as that the infirm or marginalized would be shut out. It depends on what social order you set them in how they end up doing in the race to reproduce.
@Trillian Imagine what our society would have sacrificed had we used the wrongheaded interpretation of Darwin’s findings to push humans like Steven Hawking out of the nest.
@ETpro Not odd at all. Just another form of social politics and reason to argue! XD
@ETpro That was kind of my point. That’s what makes us different from animals. I have to go to work, I’m on my way out now. I thought of the nazi thing earlier, but I didn’t have time to get into it. But yes, that magnificent brain would have been lost to us and lord knows who else we would have lost, but let’s not place too much emphasis on Mr. Hawking because of his contributions. A life is precious in and of itself regardless. Whether or not it self actualizes depends on circumstances that are sometimes out of its control. This is at the bottom of all I think and do. If everyone that is born could reach self actualzation, what then would our world be like?
@Trillian Have a good day at work. I just stumbled across this, which might seem to a dedicated social Darwinist to be behavior totally unworthy of further contribution to the gene pool, but which may come to far more worth than all of Bernie Madoff’s millions or Enron’s energy scams ever did.
@iamthemob I don’t have any statistics beyond personal observation.
@downtide – you know how problematic that is, then. Particularly considering the falling teenage pregnancy rate, the availability of contraceptive, the delay of children across education levels until the late 20s, etc….there’s less and less chance of the scenario you laid out playing out in reproduction.
Also, the external factors besides a person’s physicality can significantly skew attraction. For women, it has been shown that the increase in a person’s salary or the title of their job affects significantly how attractive a picture of them is.
Who knows if those who survive are the “fittest?” Fit, by what standard? Ability to make or steal money?
There is no absolute standard of fitness. There is only what happens. You can look at what happened retrospectively and say the fit survived, or you could say the unfit survived, depending on your opinion of those being labeled “fit.”
Competition and cooperation and various combinations thereof are all strategies that work at gaining resources for the community. Some work at one time, others at another time. There is no one definition of fitness, I believe. There are multiple ways of being fit.
I think the idea of Social Darwinism is pretty useless, except as a way to justify someone in a position of power (access to resources). The emphasis here is on “social.” I don’t think Darwinism has much, if anything to do with it.
@iamthemob “The people who are successful in society are successful because that’s the natural order.” Is this you making an observation or stating what you think to be the case? In either sense, I disagree (not that we have to agree, of course.) I think people who are successful aren’t successful because that’s the natural order, but because of their talent/skill/ability (whichever you prefer, they’re used in my instance interchangeably), the support and help they have from others getting to “the top,” and the opportunities they are afforded in life. The tech world innovators, the sports star athlete, the business tycoon – they all got to where they are because of those things.
Yes that played a big role @Allie. But the common person played an even bigger role getting those people to the top. It is the common man who works like a slave to support the foundations of “tech world innovators, the sports star athlete, the business tycoon”.
In every example, for every one blue chipper, there are thousands of others who’s money is accumulated, taxed, and sold products to that create the enormous sums of cash necessary to scout, train, and pay for an athlete. And the techy gets funding from grants, which ultimately come from tuitions or taxes. The tycoon certainly has his minions serving him as well, as workers, and buyers of his products.
Point being, that none of these blue chippers could ever have succeeded were it not for the common man being there first to support their potentials.
@Allie – that statement was part of the description of what the social darwinists argue. I don’t think that there’s a natural order to success. Thanks for asking though – I would hate to leave the impression that it was my assertion.
@wundayatta Combat skill could also be considered the benchmark of “fitness”. I mean, how much does it matter how smart you are or how charismatic you are or anything if I can rip your spleen out and beat you over the head with it? Of course, that would mean that part of being considered “fit” would involve a callous disregard for human life… not unlike what we have today.
So I guess that fitness can only be measured by how cold-bloodedly ruthless you can be.
@Cruiser I too am interested in seeing how things turn out. I figure it will either be a Star Trek Socialistic Utopia, or a dark Cyberpunk Dystopia with a sharper divide between the “haves” and “have nots” than many current-day people can even comprehend.
And if I had Warren Buffet’s wealth, I would stake it all on the latter.
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I was talking about the innovators before they got to the top, when they were just tech geeks at school or kids who really liked K*Nex. Let’s just take Bill Gates for example. I agree that he wouldn’t be where he is today without consumers buying his products, but my point is that without skill/support/opportunity he may not even have made it that far at all, to the point where there was even a product of his for people to buy.
@iamthemob Ah, thanks for clarifying.
@wundayatta Great point. Darwinism speaks of survival of the species as a driving force, with natural selection in the driver’s seat.
@iamthemob I could concoct a very credible novel where the most ruthless and selfish claw their way to the top and build massive business enterprises which, diepite warnings from science, they continue to run without regard to others till they destroy all mankind. As I mentioned above, it is survival of the species that counts in the long haul, not survival of any one organism.
@ETpro – I’m a little confused why that last part was directed at me…I thought that was what I said above…
@jerv Combat skill could certainly be one definition of fitness. But the logical leap you made from that idea to “fitness can only be measured by how cold-bloodedly ruthless you can be,” eludes me.
@wundayatta Even if we take violence out of the equation, great success in modern society can only be had at the expense of others. You can be moderately successful without hurting too many people, but as you go up the ladder it becomes less about competence and more about how many people you are willing to screw for your own advancement; how many people you are willing to step on.
@iamthemob I meant to agree with you and amplify on what you said.
@ETpro – There we go…I always support being agreed with and amplified. ;-)
Homo sapiens survived because of altruism.
@mattbrowne That might explain why America isn’t surviving as well as many other places; a lack of altruism :P
@mattbrowne & @jerv How true. The Social Darwinism taught and expounded on the lecture circuit but Spencer in late 19th and early 20th century colored American thought even up to this day. It was picked up by Ayn Rand in the mid 20th century and is reflected in the appeal of the term “rugged individualism” even today. Before it even gained its current name, William James, a strong opponent of it saw through the disconnect between Darwin’s solid science and the metaphysics. Natural Selection is science. Social selection leads to eugenics as a good thing, to men like Adolph Hitler being a paragon of social excellence, in short to the destruction of any humanity in man and most likely the ned of the human race. Darwin himself explained that in becoming snetient and developing technology, we have moved beyond natural selection and need to use our gift of thinking to evolve ever better societies.
While natuie does produce ever better life forms through natural selection, the process takes billions of years and results in thousands or millions of disasters for every success, blind alleys galore and mass extinctions. We would be utter fools to abandon our ability to think and instead go back to tooth and claw competition to be the one human who can destroy all the others in a race for the right to breed.,
@ETpro Sorry, but I couldn’t resist :P
Seriously though, you claim, “We would be utter fools to abandon our ability to think and instead go back to tooth and claw competition to be the one human who can destroy all the others in a race for the right to breed.”, but fail to mention how popular Jersey Shore is.
I will leave it to you to do the math ;)
@jerv Goran. Point taken.
I think almost all liberals and most (moderate) conservatives show significant altruism. Together they are the majority of Americans. The problem are the ultra conservatives.
@mattbrowne Unfortunately, a shrinking majority. The nutjobs are growing not only in volume, but also in numbers :(
@jerv Here’s an interesting post on Sodahead.com’s blog. It covers 21 Traits of Extremists. Should be required reading in high school social studies classes.
Holy moly, no matter what it is coined I believe more than not if mankind would have evolved with no moral compass (you can call it religion if you want) it would be Lord Of The Flies, might has always made right even when they were dead wrong. Perhaps Darwin’s explanation of it was done in a non-credible way but the theory of man being more out for himself or his immediate little group or tribe I would say is quite spot on. I guess there was a brief span of time between Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal and now where indigenous people who lived in small groups were very communal and helpful to one another like those of the Amazon rain forest and the Native Americans of North America but if you imagined all established law disappeared tomorrow those with might or the money to buy it would end up running things in less than 6 months.
@Hypocrisy_Central – I don’t think that you’re commenting on Social Darwinism. It seems more like you’re talking about something that sounds like the exact opposite.
@iamthemob Social Darwinism to me seem just a flowerful name to describe human nature.
@Hypocrisy_Central Social Darwinism does not describe human nature at all. It describes human pitting himself against human. The fact that we have instituted a rule of law instead of a rule of the jungle is a perfect refutation of Social Darwinism.
@ETpro If you take into account the robber barons who squashed the poor because they had the money you can drop them into the Middle Ages and they would be the lords with castles with the poor as the surfs. I don’t care what it is called but as I said, if it were not for some influence (call it what you will) that gave man morality and ethics it would be Lord Of The Flies, the strong would rule with their cronies who would stay in line for protection or to feel important. The main underlaying principal of the theory of Social Darwinism is still true, I would not attach Darwin to it but it is what it is.
@Hypocrisy_Central Darwin spoke of evolving, not devolving. Taking 21st century man back to the dark ages while he’s armed with nuclear weapons strikes me as a very bad idea, and not something at all likely to promote survival of the fittest. Remember, Darwinism is about survival of the whole species, not one member eating up all the rest.
It could be argued that we have evolved, and that is why we are bigger bastards than ever before.
It could also be argued that we have evolved in that we have better, more refined ways of being total dicks. And the rule of law is merely another weapon Man uses against their fellow Man. A sword may kill one person at a time, but a law can kill millions in one swoop of the pen; nastier than teeth and claws, eh?
Some would also argue that those who do not become millionaires by age 30 lack the drive and motivation to be considered fit to pass on their genetic legacy; that the poor truly are unfit to even be considered human. Sure, it’s an extremist view, but these days, extremists can get enough votes to get into high office, so (apparently) there are a shitload of extremists around nowadays.
This recent back and forth shows the exact problem with even whispering the phrase “Social Darwinism.” The application of natural selection pressures to the idea of civilizations and cultures, as well as the structures within those cultures, give us an idea that we can scientifically determine anything about society or culture. Then we start accepting things as “human nature.”
Society and culture are completely separate animals from nature, human or no. They’re potentially then best things about being human. Our ability to abstract how we live into morality, laws, etc. means that we can control for the negative aspects of what might very well be natural, evolutionary forces.
This is why Social Darwinism is the theory that dare not speak it’s name…and damn well shouldn’t.
@iamthemob Exactly. As @jerv points out, “It could be argued…” But science isn’t about just pulling ideas out of what seems right, and stating them as proven facts. Until human nature has been established scientifically, it can’t be argued scientifically. And for every anecdote that proves humans are all raving bastards there are as many or more that prove we are loving, caring altruistic beings. Truth seems to be we can be either, or both, depending on the circumstances and our upbringing and our genes and the culture we are in and who knows what else.
Human nature is scientifically absurd. Science follows laws whereas humans are (effectively) random. Not merely diverse, but completely chaotic.
@jerv Careful. You’ll get @nikipedia into this and we well be back into our all-too-frequent debate about whether human thought is deterministic or there is such a thing as free will.
@ETpro Both of those imply the existence of some sort of plan or programming, Even I am not cynical enough to believe that any sort of divine power would plan this clusterfuck (in other words, if God exists, I would like to believe that He isn’t a sick fucker), nor am I convinced that humanity has their shit together enough to really make their own fate. I believe that we just stumble around blindly, acting on impulse and going in all directions at once. On average, we are random.
The optimist says the glass is half full while the pessimist says it is half empty. However, there are always a few people that see past/through the dichotomy. For instance, the engineer will say that there is too much glass. So if @nikipedia wants to flog a dead horse with you it will wind up in another stalemate while trying that with me and my third-party position will be equally futile. Therefore, I wouldn’t worry about it too much.
@jerv I’m not putting out an invitation, but I am pretty sure she’d take you to task on that.
@Espiritus_Corvus GA! Glenn Beck demonstrated the compassion scale as it applies to his political philosophy perfectly today when he joked about what the people of Japan are going through.
OOPS! Might be time for him to take another vacation.
What an asshole
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
