Economics & Ideas & Human Rights & Science Posted by James Killus, 01 Aug 2007 06:28 am

Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism actually predates Darwin, Herbert Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” several years before Darwin published The Origin of Species. Spencer was more Lamarkian than Darwinian, actually, but “Social Darwinism” was the fittest catch phrase. Add the broth of 19th Century racial theories, and you have a truly toxic brew. Stephen J. Gould has suggested that an opposition to Social Darwinism was behind William Jennings Bryan’s opposition to biological Darwinism, and I find it plausible though there are those who disagree Gould’s suggestion would mean, among other things, that Bryan got another bum rap from history.

One of the funny-but-also-sad things I sometimes see are the bumper magnet decals that show a Darwin fish being eaten by a Jesus fish, seemingly suggesting that the car owner doesn’t believe in Darwinian evolution, but does believe in “survival of the fittest,” i.e. Social Darwinism. Certainly that is a general attitude from a good many people on the Right. Dog-eat-dog society, but let’s not consider the natural world as anything other than divinely planned. Well, that’s okay; dogs were intelligently designed.

In fact, Social Darwinism is probably mistaken for Darwinism by more people than there are people who know the difference. This is sad and disturbing. Similarly, I’m pretty sure that people who have a decent understanding of scientific evolution are a minority among people who say they believe in evolution. The Social Darwinism contaminates the scientific understanding.

Social Darwinism also contaminates the political discourse. John Adams wrote that the U.S. Senate should be a body of “the rich, the well-born, and the able,” and that has become an approval phrase for one ideal of government. What Social Darwinism claims is that all three can be the same, that the able will get rich and their children will be all three, yea unto the umpteenth generation.

So I cringe a little when I hear the phrase “evolution in action” referring to some unfortunate person (usually of a lower social class than the speaker) dying from some strange combination of circumstances (which usually include alcohol) that allows the speaker to feel superior. Things like the Darwin Awards elevate the outlook to cheap entertainment.

When a poor man acts a fool, the poor man dies. When a rich and powerful man acts a fool, the poor man dies. Some might consider that “survival of the fittest,” but it also sounds like a prescription for revolution. I’m just not fool enough to believe that the revolution will get it right either, or even that there is a “right” to be gotten.

Trackbacks

Responses to “Social Darwinism”

  1. on 01 Aug 2007 at 10:04 am 1. Oaktown Girl said …

    [While I’m at work on the phone “on hold” to a monstrous corporate entity…]
    Nice post, James. A lot of good food for thought here.

    bumper magnet decals that show a Darwin fish being eaten by a Jesus fish, seemingly suggesting that the car owner doesn’t believe in Darwinian evolution, but does believe in “survival of the fittest,” i.e. Social Darwinism.

    That’s an interesting way to think about it - a more expanded (or condensed, depending on how you want to look at it) view than the general way I’ve always seen it: “My God/Jesus trumps your Darwin nonsense”. Certainly Jesus in their minds is indeed the fittest and ultimate “survivor”. Even as a non-Christian, thinking about Jesus in those terms triggers my emotional gag reflex.

    More later, (work permitting!)

  2. on 01 Aug 2007 at 5:34 pm 2. James Killus said …

    Jesus the soldier, Jesus the civic booster, Jesus the used-car salesman, “Buddy Jesus,” it’s all good.

  3. on 01 Aug 2007 at 8:58 pm 3. JP Stormcrow said …

    There is a lot of subtlety in evolution, I’m certainly sure that I miss a lot of it. My observation is that the closer you get to anything that is related to our conception of ourselves, the rockier it gets for a dispassionate discussion. Not too surprising I guess, but at times it does make me doubt that we will ever really “get there” ourselves, or will we need our silicon buddies to explain it to us. (And even then we will probably reject it, What do those circuit heads know anyway?)

    But most dispiriting of all, is how quickly scientific half-truths are seized on for self-justifying bamboozlement. … and I probably do my share of it and just don’t realize it…

    (Grumpy, because Patti Smith was in town tonight, and I meant to go with my daughter and we forgot what day it was and missed it. Damn! Last and only time I saw her was at the Agora (great small club in Cleveland) in ‘75 or ‘76. Great show. I recall she took questions from the audience until someone asked her “Are you balling Lou Reed?”)

  4. on 01 Aug 2007 at 9:09 pm 4. James Killus said …

    My wife Amy did some transcription work for someone doing a documentary on Sam Wagstaff, and Patti Smith was one of the interviews. There’s a quality of magnificence about her that is hard to pin down, but it’s easy to see. She’s extraordinary.

  5. on 01 Aug 2007 at 9:25 pm 5. JP Stormcrow said …

    Jesus died for somebody’s sins but no mi-ine…