Talk:Social Darwinism/Archive 1

coining/popularizing the term "social darwinism"?

The article states that Richard Hofstadter popularized the term "social darwinism", so therefore it existed before him. If so, then who did coin the term "social darwinism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.204.81 (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Old comments

Hm. It's always been my own impression that social Darwinism was simply the old "superiority of noble blood" and whatnot reworked in a more modern form. I'd like to write a bit on that theme, but I'm not sure it would be NPOV; or it might be too speculative. Opinions? -- April

I'd say it's often interpreted that way, but I think it's quite unfair for this to be the only thing said about social darwinism in the article. Applying evolutionary principles to societies and cultures can be a quite useful and scientifically meaningful approach to their study; see memetics for the modern "acceptable" term for this kind of thing. I believe Darwin's Origin of the Species included some speculation on how social darwinism was responsible for the evolution of altruism, for example; he pointed out that a tribe of people who were predisposed towards being generous to each other would tend to outcompete a tribe of people who were all selfish bastards. Bryan Derksen

• • I agree that there are forms of social evolution and so forth that seem analagous to biological evolution. However, it's always been my understanding that the phrase "social Darwinism" specifically referred to the survival-of-the-fittest approach described in the main article. Perhaps an alternate article on "social development" or somesuch would be apropos, with a pointer from this article? -- April

I would add to --April's comment that "Social Darwinisn" also utterly misconstrues the Darwinian notion of "survival of the fittest." Social Darwinism does NOT refer to the application of evolutionary (meaning Darwinian) principles to societies and cultures (this is precisely what Julien Steward and Marvin Harris tried to do); it refers to a specific political ideology. SR

---

This article is very non-NPOV. --Taw

Really? Although I would not at all object to removing this somewhat gratuitous and inflamatory phrase, "and is thus frequently held in poor regard," the article seems quite NPOV to me -- it provides a fairly accurate description of the ideology, and explains why most scientists object to it. Could you clarify what you object to? SR

I just removed this statement from the section linking Social Darwinism to Calvinist ideas: "as though a means to make them appear scientific (compare contemporary American apparent oxymorons like "Creation Science")" - it's clearly an non-NPOV editorial comment, and irrelevant. -- Speculative catholic

---

punctuation needs correction, i believe:

"xxxxx",

to:

"xxxxx,"

if i dont forget, i ll correct it but not now.

btw, am i right?

6birc 04:14 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

Since I'm removing a little graffiti here, I'll answer this 2 1/2-year-old question: Short answer, both are correct. Long answer: "xxxx," is the traditional (19th century?) form, but recently "xxxx", has also become standard for some extremely well written journals, such as The Economist. Punctuation logically goes inside or outside the quotes, depending on whether it is part of the quote or not. Traditionally, <,> and <.> were exceptions to this rule, always going inside, but no longer (or at least not for everyone). --kwami 19:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm just curious here. Is there any substantiation for the claim that Spencer believed the Irish to be barbarous and the English to be superior? Or for the insinuation that Spencer held bigoted views on race and class? Or for the insinuation that Spencer advocated the starving of the weakest? Or the claim that Spencer's work committed the naturalistic fallacy? Or the claim that Spencer's views were in deep conflict with an environmental explanation of technological and social development (like that of Jared Diamond)?

These are all pretty strong charges, after all. I always took Spencer to be something like a radical John Stuart Mill who was way into evolutionary theory, the commonwealth-organism analogy, and the optimistic idea that societal rules develop in a way conducive to the well-being of the members of the society. And the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article (here) seems to agree. It's just plain odd to think that Spencer the liberal-cum-anarchist and women's rights advocate was a slimy racist out to starve the weak -- which is the impression fostered by this article.

---

I'd like to second anonymous' comments above, and I am editing the page accordingly. I haven't seen anything that indicates that Spencer ranked civilazations, with the Irish below the English, etc. If citations for this exist, someone needs to cite them. He certainly was not a defender of British imperialism. The snippet included in the Fordham University link doesn't seem to say the same thing that this article does (nor does it really seem to agree with the introductory the website gives). Also, I don't see the connection between Hobbes and Spencer, so I'm taking that out.

Also excising the entire first paragraph on "Social Darwinism has been discredited on many grounds." The article doesn't contain a definition of Social Darwinism, so we can't say one way or the other if it bears little or no relationship to actual evolution. Furthermore, to say that SD's misuse "survival of the fittest" is odd, becuase this term was coined not by Darwin but by Herbert Spencer, who, in the article if not in reality, is one of the founders of Social Darwinism.

Actually, I have doubts about the usefulness of this article altogether. What does "social darwinism" actually mean? This article doesn't say, although it does tell us in the second sentence what its critics think about it. I can't remember ever hearing "social darwinism" used except as a hate-word by its self-proclaimed detractors. - Nat Krause 06:02, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Good edit Nat, the article was in bad need of NPOVing. BTW, if you think articles designed around pejoratives are bad, I could clue you in on enough of them to start a wiki-project ;) Have you seen Heteronormativity? Sam Spade 06:06, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Swift died in 1745, pre-Darwin, and pre-Malthus ... so what is his relevance to this article?

Excellent point. - Nat Krause 08:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Herbert Spencer gets a bad rap: see essay by Roderick Long. I've seen it said, somewhere or other, that the core of Social Darwinism as a political position was the observation that civilization itself, through trade and charity, protects the weak; it follows that the state ought to compensate for the lack of "beneficial" culling, e.g. through eugenics. —Tamfang

Neo Social Darwinism

I feel that Social Darwinism can also apply to the general concept that society has no obligation or right to coddle the stupid or censor the unusual, particularly if such coddling or censor is done purely for the sake of homogeniety. Such actions by society are artificial and temporary. It is my general belief that people should be protected from their own ignorance. However, I am against protecting (or rewarding) people for stupid behavior. There must be personal accountability at some point. I am very against holding people down who are simply different from you or me - you get social progress only when someone different than yourself makes a step forward. These people are always seen as "breaking the norms of social behavior". I draw the line at breaking the laws (usually - here, too, there are exceptions).

Just as a species develops towards the most survivable (not "fittest" as a "synonym for "strongest"), so, too, must a society develop. Darwinism is not survival of the strongest, but more about the survival of the Adaptist. Societies adapt and change or die. Societies that hinder development end up having other societies dictate their future.

The shortest, crudest possible summary of my Neo Social Darwinist philosophy is twofold. First, it is that people should be allowed to punish themselves through the immediacy of stupid behavior. The gene pool will thank them. Second, people who are different should have the freedom to be themselves - and if others will laugh, so be it. No great discoverer or social innovator has ever lived who did not have a roomful of naysayers.

I would like the definition of Social Darwinism to reflect, also, this Neo Social Darwinism. Or, maybe I have not read enough of the correct books to fully develop an existing philosophy?

- I can be reached at hall.j.m@att.net for personal comments.

Your personal philsophy of "Neo Social Darwinism" should not be included in the article because it is original research, i.e. you have created it yourself. While there may or may not be merit to that, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia until it becomes notable. --Holdek 09:14, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I often wonder what is considered stupid behaviour? A person like Einstein forgetting to close the microwave and get irradiated?

Article is poorly written

It's true that the term "social darwinism" is often used as a pejorative; in that sense, it resembles the word, "fascist." But "social darwinism" is a "real" term that describes a "real" social philosophy that was quite popular, for different reasons, among intellectuals of diverse political stripes up through the late 1930s/early 1940s.

That being said, this article is poorly written and needs to be totally revised.

Response to unsigned comment: note the difference that "fascist" was a self-description for a particular ideology. ... dave souza, talk 22:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, and I cannot see why this point hasn't been given more emphasis; I draw your attention to the following passage (probably not the first time you will have looked at it in this light):

"It was the White race, the race that had created the great Western Civilization, that deserved to survive from the viewpoint of "survival of the fittest", but in the modern world the White race was falling victim to inner politics while the yellow and brown hordes of Asia were building up their strength in preparation to overthrow the White man's domination of the globe. Many believed that it was only a matter of time before the White race and its Western culture were supplanted by "inferior" races and cultures." [From the "Social Darwinism" article, section on "Social Darwinism and Race"]

This "...yellow and brown hordes of Asia..." should not be the tone used in such a reputable-database-to-be. I believe wikipedia deserves more respect; it seems someone is being a little careless with their creative writing. It's a small point, perhaps, but would Pears' Cyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Brittanica or other comparable publications use such questionable description? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.20.28 (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2007

Seems a reasonable point to me in that the terms are not attributed to a verifiable source. Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. .. dave souza, talk 22:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The article states without reference that Darwin considered eugenics to be "evil". Whilst I don't claim to be an authority, this certainly doesn't accord with what I have read about Darwin's correspondence with Galton. Taken most favourably, it over-simplifies Darwin's thoughts. Taken unfavourably, it misrepresents them for the sake of the author's personal bias. I suggest this sentence be deleted and replaced with a link to a more detailed analysis of the relationship between Darwinism and eugenics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.116.243 (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

positive social effects of evolutionary theory

Perhaps these comments should go under "social effects of evolution", but that's only a stub at the moment.

Social Darwinism gets a deservedly bad rap for justifying oppression and genocide, and for being based on a perhaps purposeful misunderstanding of natural selection. But it's also had beneficial effects. In the late 19th century nations were seen to be subject to the same process of "survival of the fittest" as species, and social commentators noted that the majority of citizens (the poor and working classes) weren't particularly "fit". This motivated a wide range of beneficial social reform to ensure the survival of the nation: improvement of working conditions and a reduction of the work week to 5-1/2 days (leaving Saturday afternoons free), public health reforms, mandatory universal education, the development of team sports (rugby/football, soccer, cricket/baseball, basketball) for "healthier bodies and minds" and their promotion as spectator sports to occupy people's new leisure time, public transportation (trolleys, buses, trams) to take people to the new sports stadiums downtown, etc. There may have been similar changes in the countryside. Many of these ideas were first developed in and exported from Britain, France, and the US. In other words, many of the aspects of modern society that we take for granted today were at least partially motivated by theories of evolution and the fears generated by Social Darwinism. This is far more profound than debates about teaching Creationism in public schools. --kwami 01:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How ironic that the working class, the ones who do all the work aren't considered to be fit, while their lazy, snobby boss apparently is.

Why is social darwınısm flawed?

I am an amatuer evolutıonıst/humanıst and would lıke somoeone to actually explaın to me exactly why the wıdely accepted evolutıonary theory can't be applıed to human socıetıes? For that matter - socıeıtes of all specıes? If you consıder the fact that socıety ıs comprısed of ınduvıduals and buılt up on theır ıdeas; and all ınduvıduals are expected to have 'survıval of the fıttest' notıons floatıng around ın theır subconcıous (or genes) why ıs ıt wrong to speculate a darwınıst machınery ın actıon ın socıety? And no - thıs ısnt some kınd of rheotorıcal questıon: I am very much open and eager to recıeve some reponse on ıt!

There's no reason at all; it's good science, and if the article gives the opposite impression it needs to be worked on. I did a rewrite 2-3 years ago, but I don't see much if any of my version here. But like many good scientific theories, there are those for whom their personal misinterpretation or political views cloud their understanding. Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology are often associated with racism by those who can't be bothered to educate themselves about the real science behind them, and so tend to engender controversy. If I find some spare time anytime soon, I may attempt another rewrite. BTW, what's up with your "i"s? --LDC 03:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem isn't in applying evolutionary theory to societies. Very early on the term social Darwinism took on negative connotations: i.e., if I can exploit you, then not only is it natural for me to do so, but I have an obligation to do so for the good of the species. "Might makes Right" in a pseudo-scientific guise.

The OED defines social Darwinism as "the Darwinian theory of evolution extended and applied to various aspects of the concept of social progress". The key fallacy here is "progress": progress is usually circularly defined as whichever social system wins out. In other words, the Creationist objection that natural selection is tautological is justified in this case. The OED chose the following texts to illustrate the usage of the phrase:

1887 [Mind XII. 627] There can be no ‘social Darwinism’. Social progress is not essentially the result of a struggle, but of intelligence. 1972 [P. B. MEDAWAR Hope of Progress 71] Social Darwinism in the form expounded by Haeckel provided a theoretical justification for the great biological crimes of Fascism.

1907 [Amer. Jrnl. Sociol. XII. 709] The great writers on race-struggles never use the term ‘social Darwinism’ but a number of sociologists have called them ‘social Darwinists’. 1945 [R. HOFSTADTER Social Darwinism in Amer. Thought ii. 25] In applying evolution to society, Spencer, and after him the Social Darwinists, were simply doing poetic justice to its origins. 1981 [J. SUTHERLAND Bestsellers iv. 57] There is no room for..cosiness in Hailey's social-Darwinist universe.

I'm not claiming the OED is the end all of authorities, but they do try very hard to come up with a representative set of quotations to illustrate all usages of a word. Theorists who don't intend their ideas to be justification for particular social systems, but rather an explanation for how those systems come about, are usually careful to distance themselves by choosing a different term, such as sociobiology or evolutionary psychology. If these are denotatively near synonyms to social Darwinism, their usage is far different. --kwami 10:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly thanks both of you for your prompt replies. Kwami I'm afraid I don't see the science in your arguement - you seem to be trying to convince me of how the term 'social darwninism' is wrong. "The key fallacy here is "progress": progress is usually circularly defined as whichever social system wins out"? Well what is wrong with tthat? If "wins out" implies survives, then isn't that what evolution is?

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that evryone belies the idea of social darwinism purely on acount of it's negative connotations; not because it's logic is flawed in some way. Anyone want to comment? (LDC - i was using a turkish keyboard and that had dodgy 'i's u c!) kartik

Kwami's right that the term "Social Darwinism" itself is most often used to describe the combination of evolution of culture with the naturalistic fallacy, i.e., that the fact of differential survival implies that it is somehow morally right, or the even more confused notion that evolution has a direction--that there is such a thing as "more" and "less" evolved, which is not a part of any real Drawinian theory. --LDC

I think one problem with Social Darwinism lies in the name. Most darwinists don't want the theory applied to social issues. In fact, the idea of social Darwinism was conceived before biological evolution. Malthus's ideas could be seen as social darwinism and actually inspired Darwin. I think the problem arises when science is used to justify social injustice. Jruffatto 17:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Social darwinism" has nothing to do with darwinism, the theory of natural selection. In darwinism, the species becomes more adept at living because the unadept die off and are no longer in the gene pool. However, there is no such selection in the economic world. The poor do no dissappear. Noone becomes more adept. --Jeiki Rebirth 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to also agree with Kwami; the term "Social Darwinism" is used not as a synonym for, say, evolutionary psychology, but in reference to a belief that those who are more fortunate in society are so because they are "stronger" than the less fortunate and that attempting to make more fortunate the "weaker" group through any means will result in the species being "polluted" by inferior specimens. The fallacy of this notion is that it assumes that the most efficient society is one that promotes competition, and hence individual selection, so as to weed out the least "fit" individuals. Since the degree to which an individual is equipped for survival is determined not only by the characteristics which define their abilities to function autonomously in a particular framework, but also by how they interact socially with others, it cannot be said that there exists a degree of "fitness" of an individual independent of the mode of the society in which they live. As such, it also cannot be said that it automatically follows from individual selection's being promoted that the overall "fitness" of a species will be increased to its maximum when a specific mode of organization which favors individual selection may itself detract from individuals' levels of "fitness." As a demonstration of what I'm explaining, take, for example, the human body: Each component of the human body has been selected for by nature; the organs, which can be considered analogues of individuals, and the body itself, which can be considered an analogue for society, are all deemed "fit," but what happens when individual selection is applied to the body? When each organ is isolated, it can't survive. Social Darwinism's failure in explaining why the body loses its “fitness” when you subject its parts to individual selection shows its being errant. Batman Jr. 01:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

---

This article is terribly written. Too much concentration on what critics say, rather than an objective look at the theory.--WarHawk

Hi. It doesn't look like anyone has added to this since May, but I'm struggling with the issues myself, and I thought I would put in my two cents on it. Firstly, I, on a personal level, believe social darwinism is wrong because the idea has been used to justify imperialism, robber-baron capitalism, etc --all resulting in immense social inequity-- and, because of this, i'm trying to figure out the logical flaws in the theory. Here is what I've come up with: firstly, the use of "natural selection" with regards to what occurs in nature and what occurs in societies is problematic. In nature, natural selection occurs as a result of chance variations in genetics, which ultimately result in the advancement of one variation, trait, species, etc, over another. If this same principle is applied to societies, the issue becomes more nuanced. Intelligence, for example, is an extremely important "trait" in society, and could potentially result in a person becoming rich, powerful, and continuing his/her "line." Intelligence, however, is not determined by a single gene or variation, and it's development is entirely determined by relative surrounding circumstances. Secondly (and this point is tenuous and strictly my own), if social darwinism was a scientific fact, like darwinism, survival and reproduction would be of the utmost importance. This, however, is heavily contradicted by birthrates and population growth in industrialized and developing countries. Populations are declining in the most "advanced" nations on earth, while populations in third world and developing nations skyrocket. According to social darwinism as science, this should not be happening. The theory would have to border on eugenics to begin to account for this discrepency-- a line most social darwinist were not toeing at the turn of the century. Thirdly, natural selection and darwinism do not constitute progress, and Darwin was firmly against this interpretation of his work. Natural selection occurs, but it occurs with no linear movement and in no preordained or particular direction: what is favored today may die tomorrow and what was dying yesterday may be thriving today (to put it tritely). Social Darwinism, oftentimes, used darwinism as a means to justify a progression in society from the "beasts"-- the poor, undeveloped, or handicapped-- to the "advanced"-- rich, powerful, democratic people and societies-- which is completely against Darwin's science.

From here, my points are more philosophical. Firstly, social darwinism confounds the notion of nature and morality. Just because we believe something occurs in nature does not necessarily make it morally correct or applicable to human societies. Cannibalism, for example, undeniably occurs in nature, yet it is difficult to justify it in human society. And finally, social darwinism makes the common philosophical fallacy of what "is" happening "ought" to be happening. As I saw on another website, just because I stubbed my toe this morning does not mean I ought to have stubbed my toe this morning.

That was a little more than i meant to write, but I think that helps me believe that social darwinism is actually wrong...hope it helped you all.

Rewrite

I have begun a rewrite of this article, as suggested by many editors above. I am using Piotr Sztompka's 'Socjologia' book as my primary source. As it is in Polish, there may be some terms I have incorrectly translated - feel free to correct them, or I will do so as I get my hands on an English book on the subject (August-September the latest). I am also thinking wheter or not make this a subarticle of the evolution in sociology and move some of the contents not related to classical, 19th century social darwinism there. Any comments appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just rewrote this page as suggested by the comments above :!/ I guess the work never ends... Feel free to improve it since there is always work to be done, but please note that I consulted the three references listed in the article as well as various primary sources and others (JDY Peel's Spencer biography for instance) that I've read over the years, so I think the general outline is pretty well set and well thought out. Rex 20:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was much better then before your effort. Still, there is lots of room for expantion - perhaps I should have written this, not 'rewrite'. Although as you will see from my changes in lead there were some factual errors - i.e. social darwinism was not inspired by Darwin, nor had it many similaritities until the theories from 20th century. Or so Sztompka whom am I reading just now writes in his book. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After reading more on the subject, I will likely move most of my additions to Social evolutionism, as it is more fitting for the main article, and make social darwinism a subarticle of that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

needs attention

I placed an "attention" notice on this page because the body of the text has particularly bad writing. Many of the sentences have poor grammar, and much of the text is redundant (especially the "Criticisms" section). I did all that I can for tonight. Good luck. AdamRetchless 03:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Anon additions

I moved some recent anon aditions here, they seem to make *some* sense, but need to be wikified at the very least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It should probably be added that the use of the term "Darwinism" in Social Darwinism is a misnomer, as Darwin's theory of natural selection does not refer to a conscious process as suggested by Social Darwinism. Darwinian evolution postulates a cycle that occurs by untempered causality, not by a deliberate attempt to "better" a population which fails in any plausible manner to be considered "natural". --Ahsirakh 17:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Removed this nonsense:

Today, Modern adherents to Social Darwinism include many within the libertarian political movement, particularly libertarian Republicans. Republican Liberty Caucus Founder Eric Dondero Rittberg, is the Nation's leading proponent of the Modern Social Darwinist movement. Other leading libertarian Social Darwinists include: Radio Talk Show Host Neal Boortz, Sociologist Charles Murray, Jesse Ventura and Rock Guitarists Gene Simmons and Ted Nugent. Many consider California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to be a quasi-Social Darwinist. And famed Evolutionary Theorist Stephen Pinker, is often placed in the Social Darwinist camp.

While it's true that many like to smear these people with the SD label, there is no such thing as "the modern SD movement", and none of these people label themselves that way (except perhaps Rittberg, who nobody takes seriously anyway). LDC 23:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Move

Shouldn't this be at social darwinism (no capital letters)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite December 2005

Keeping on with the good work done by others before me. I cleaned up more of the grammar, did some restructuring, re-titled a few sections. The article should in my opinion (1) define SD (2) provide context of its origin, ie discussion of Darwin's theory and Darwin's view of social evolution, (3) expand on the primary thinkers associated with sd, (4) discuss impact, implications, and legacy. That's how I have tried to set up the article, but it still needs work. I hope you'll agree with my idea behind the format. Kaisershatner 15:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Good job. Did you use any references during your rewrite?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Mostly copyediting, like paragraph structure and subject lines. Whatever material I added was cribbed from the relevant wikipedia pages, although I'm a bit more interested in the subject now and I may check out what's on the web. Kaisershatner 19:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

sorry but this article is still way to naive and is not enough focused on the historical darwinism(and especially it'S flaws: pure races do not exist, society can decide what to do unlike animals,...)!

correct?

This sentence is problematic, maybe misleading or even completely false:

"While Social Darwinism applies the concept of evolution and natural selection to human cultural systems, none of the political and quasi-theological ideologies related to it are a part of Darwin's biological theory of evolution."

In Darwin's The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (1871) one can read sentences like:

„We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domesting animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but expecting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." (e.g. searchable on google books)

To be exact, it seems that Spencer, Darwin, Wallace and their followers have been quite optimistic, that it's possible and correct to apply evolutionary principles of gradual variation and selection to all evolutionary processes, including human ones (which seems only logical if one considers that their conversations, comments and references suggest that both Darwin and Wallace got their inspiration from Malthus' demographic and economic writings). Their interpretations and conclusions were quite different (e.g. Wallace came to the conclusion that only a really liberal, social and democratic society can evolve to a moral society out of natural evolutional principles, see e.g. Wallace, Social Environment and Moral Progress (1913) [1], while Darwin himself and some of his relatives propagated directly or indirectly eugenic ideas with the known results).

Some of Darwin's private notes suggest that he kept out men, and his beloved dogs and horses when first publishing of his evolution theory, the Origin of the Species, for argumentative reasons — they would have caused unnecessairy opposition; evolutionary steps need to be small; that may have been obvious for him especially in the case of scientific evolution...

- Holger, 2006-01-06

Darwin's quote cited above is a justification of eugenics as opposed to Christian pity. But you can't identify eugenics with social darwinism: precisely, Darwin here shows that human societies do not work as animal species, because we are "civilised men"! Lapaz 16:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalized

Seems that this article has been vandalized. --216.226.127.190 18:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure had been, sorted now. Thanks, ...dave souza 20:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph needs rework

This paragraph has some problems:

In Germany, the publication of Ernst Haeckel's best-selling Welträtse ('Riddle of the Universe') in 1899 brought Social Darwinism to a very wide audience, and it took on something of the nature of a new religion imbued with a romantic and symbolistic mysticism. This lead to the formation of the Monist League in 1904, with many prominent citizens, including the Nobel Prize winner, Wilhelm Ostwald. By 1909 it had a membership of some six thousand people. It promoted eugenic reform and became an important progenitor of the Völkisch movement and, ultimately, of the National Socialist German Workers Party of Adolf Hitler.

"Welträtse" should probably read "Welträthsel" (19th century german spelling). Nevertheless it is not clear why especially this book should have proposed eugenics. Indeed Haeckel repeated Darwin's views from "Descent of Man", but rather in "Die Lebenswunder" than in his monist writings (which tried to establish some kind of secular ethics against christian norms).

The monism described in "Die Welträthsel" and "Der Monismus als Band zwischen Religion und Wissenschaft" is rather a religion than an ideology: it describes god as inherent principle in all material things (one interpretation may be "god is visible in the laws of nature"), a little similiar e.g. to Newton's Deism. The monist organization of germany ("Deutscher Monistenbund") was forbidden in 1933, and newly founded in 1945.

To what extend the Völkisch movement and the Nazi party should have a direct connection to Haeckel's organization (he died in 1919) is questionable. Can this allegation be proved?

-- 212.144.0.34 18:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right on the spelling of Welträthsel--a typo. For the connection of the Völkisch movement (and National Socialism) to the Monist League I relied on a chapter "Monism and National Socialism" in Daniel Gasman's The Scientific Origins of National Socialism. Yes, one might say there is no "direct" connection, but rather a part of a continuing development of the ideas around Social Darwinism. "Progenitor" is right, I think. I think that gasman has done a respectable job in showing, in some detail, the connections. Actually, it seemed to me that the Social Darwinism article is a little heavy on Spencer and that it was useful to introduce Haekel here too.

DonSiano 19:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It may make sense to quote from Gasman's explanation in his book directly, and labeling this statement as his POV. For the unbiased reader of Haeckel's texts a connection may not be obvious (unless you interpret the inherent chauvinism as proto-nazi-ideology, but you find this also in other author's texts). The problem is, that various historians in the past drew so many connections from so many 18th/19th/early 20th century philosophers and naturalists to NS science.

If one would take all these attempts seriously, almost every thinker before 1933 has to get labeled as proto-Nazi-ideologist; from Plato to Kant and Descartes to Godwin and Malthus, from Darwin to Wallace, Lyell, Huxley, Galton, Gray and Spencer including all naturalists, anthropologists, most sociologists, etc. (and — even more unplausible — one would have to assume that Hitler and his friends read all those texts). For sure the 19th century science culminated in a situation that was a fertile ground for fascist ideologies in germany and italy, but one should maybe remind that some other countries developed from the same point of scientific knowledge without fascist regimes (even if the accused authors lived there and published in the native language of these countries).

You find different versions of Haeckel's books online, some are available at the Gutenberg project (Weltraethsel, german [2], Monism as Connecting Religion and Science english [3]); maybe worth a reading before writing down the final version of the paragraph. Unless someone can prove a connection by some primary-source citation exhibiting proto-NS- or Social Darwinism ideology, excessing the common 19th/early 20th century national chauvinism and belief, it may suit a neutral point of view better, not to take over such statements uncommented.

-- 212.144.13.162 17:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I second 212.144.13.162's motion. Gasman's view of the Monist League as proto-Nazi group is by no means universally accepted by scholars in that field. Therefore, I've moved the unsourced allegations that depend on Gasman's work over to this article's "Criticism and Controversies" section, and have also added a citation to a recent paper in the scholarly literature that disputes Gasman's views on this subject.--Vathek 23:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Darwin & Galton

This paragraph needs examination:

Neither Galton nor Darwin, though, advocated any eugenic policies such as those which would be undertaken in the early 20th century, as government coercion of any form was very much against their political opinions.

This may be misleading without further explanation: usually Galton is referred as the inventor of the science of eugenics by his contemporaries. Also see the Eugenics wikipedia article. Also take into account Darwin's often-cited paragraph in Descent of Man ("We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination...", quoted e.g. in Descent of Man). To what extend eugenics are inherent part of NS ideology, or rather a common late 19th/early 20th century problem (heavily exaggerated by the NS machinery similiar to the common racism and antisemitism), is not easy to say.

-- 212.144.12.184 17:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Both comments are correct. Galton is the father of eugenism, but he thought, as did Nietzsche, that natural selection was disfavorable to individual exceptions. Eugenism thus had to counter natural selection, which wasn't seen as good in itself (he is thus opposed to social darwinism, in that he doesn't believes in autoregulation of human societies on the model of Darwin's theory of evolution applied to animal kingdom). Lapaz 16:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sociobiology

Sociobiology is a scientific discipline which researches the biological basis of social behaviour. This has nothing to do with politics. Could someone please cite any notable sociobiologial study program or textbook which crosses over to politics? If not, the note about sociobiology should be removed from the article. --Tmh 00:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree--you might as well put in a note on astronomy.DonSiano 13:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

cheap shot

Why the undocumented and unsupported smear of American conservatives in your section of Social Darwinism today? With no support whatsoever someone has argued that contemporary conservatism is influenced by social Darwinsim? Where, pray tell, is the evidence? None is provided, it is just a free floating allegation. Is the allegation made because the author chooses to characterize conservative support of the Free Market as social darwinism? Are you referring to the controversy a decade ago over the Bell Curve; a book not even all conservatives endorsed, and which has not been followed up by any important conservative writer? Can you point to something in First Things, National Review, or any other conservative journal which endorses social darwinism? Or, as I strongly suspect, is this just a cheap shot at people you do not agree with, a way to tie conservatives into a discredited rascist ideology? Either prove this assertion (good luck) or remove it and save the ad hominem for Daily Kos.

The U.S. is a joke. Get over it.

-G

That's it? That's your response to the objection? Wow. How erudite...

Sterilization

I don't see compulsory sterilization as having much relation to social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is about how laissez faire conditions will result in social and biological stratification with the best genes getting the best social position. Eugenics and compulsory sterilization programs stress that social intervention (not laissez faire) is necessary in order to achieve a population with the best genes. They obviously share various assumptions but are two entirely different prescriptions for state activity. --Fastfission 15:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In the strict sense of the word, you are correct. However, if you consider social Darwinism as an ideology, I believe it could lead to eugenics policies, including compulsory sterilization. It would be, in a sense, strange, as annihilating the struggle itself would lead to the opposite of social darwinism, but then ideologies don't bother much with contradictions. Lapaz 00:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported allegations of influence

It's evident that Darwinism is the target of allegations of influencing or inspiring the Nazis, often from creationists seeking to discredit evolution. However such claims against "social darwinism" are more problematic, and sources are needed to establish that such claims are being made, and what they're saying. The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist provides evidence that such charges are being made against Darwinism and credible evidence countering such claims. There is more of a case for saying that eugenics inspired Nazi ideas of Racial hygiene, but if we are equating Social Darwinism to Eugenics that should be made clear, and the point is better covered in these articles. ..dave souza, talk 19:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Darwinism is distinct from Social Darwinism. The first one is a scientific theory of evolution, the latter a political ideology, which did influence the Nazis. But Darwin himself as little to do with it, although he did himself, in part, support Spencer's ideas. But he also distanced himself from those ideas, as quotes above show, in a certain way. Lapaz 01:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I agree with your general comment, Dave, I don't think the "The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist" link is very good. Most of the argument seems to be that racism existed before Darwin, and thus he couldn't have created it. This is not what people are arguing; they are saying that Darwin provided an evolutionary framework in which notions of racial hierarchy could flourish. This itself is also problematic, since it was also a framework in which people could argue against hierarchy (and his racial theories were actually considerably more anti-racist than those of his contemporary anthropology). He also cherry-picks only the parts of Descent of Man where Darwin hedges his bets. If you read the book through you'll see it goes back and forth (as is typical of Darwin's work)—sometimes he supports what would today be labeled as racist/eugenic/social Darwinistic ideas, sometimes he does not, sometimes he supports hierarchical viewing of humanity, sometimes he does not.

The biggest problem in the Creationist argument is the wobby use of "inspiration". Though I think the article spends far too much of its time dwelling on ways in which people used religion to justify bad things (it makes it look a bit extreme itself), the point which needs to be made is that it is difficult to blame individuals for what people later do with their intellectual work or how later people invoke their name—whether it is Darwin or Galton, Jesus Christ or Muhummad. At the same time, to downplay the way that Darwinism served many people in justifying both racism and eugenics is historically inaccurate. Darwinism could be used for such causes but it certainly didn't mandate such interpretations—it is a very flexible and ambiguous theory. --Fastfission 14:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, although "Darwinism served many people", it did in the sense of an ideology, that is, Social Darwinism, and not in the sense of a scientific theory, that is, Darwinism. The theory of evolution per se is no justification of eugenics. The problem is probably, as you point out, how Darwin himself balanced between keeping to his scientific theory and between ideological applications of them (which he finally rejected, as in the quote provided by someone above, which shows that he considers human society to work differently). That Francis Galton instrumentalized his theories, or that Darwin himself may have done it, in no ways justify the POV relation which would directly tie "darwinism" (as a scientific theory) to "eugenics" (as an ideology and as a state policy — although Jurgen Habermas recently spoke of a "liberal eugenics" not instaured by the state...). There is, however, a clear link between Social Darwinism & eugenics — see Galton. Lapaz 15:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See Arthur de Gobineau. Maybe the Nazi eugenics program should be called "Social Gobineauism" instead. Intangible 15:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The influence on marxism/stalinism

the NCSE site mentions that Stalin was influenced by social darwinist ideas, and in other places I saw that Marx also was. I think that would be interesting to add something on this sense, since it is often associated only with economical liberalism. The commonalities seems to me that both (or at least "some", since social darwinism is not a theory per se, but almost an artifact, or at least seems to me) have the idea of a somewhat progressive, goal-oriented evolution, only that Marx saw that goal as the communism, rather than anything else; also, the idea of struggle between classes is somewhat familiar with struggle for life. Actually i think that is somewhat like some ideas of group selection, which only came later, but I guess that the social version could have been influenced by social darwinist ideas. Perhaps some researches already investigated this possibility, I do not know. --Extremophile 22:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Social Darwinism" can in retrospect be found within any political ideology, for example in the work "Mutual Aid" of the anarchist Peter Kropotkin. Hofstadter's 1944 use of the label is laughable at best. Intangible 19:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

pov tag

I've added a pov tag. The extent of Social Darwinism in Spencer's and Sumner's thought is greatly exaggerated. See the works "Social Darwinism: science and myth in Anglo-American social thought" and "William Graham Sumner’s Social Darwinism: A Reconsideration" by Bannister, among others. Intangible 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(implying that a large change to the introduction of this article is necessary) Intangible 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A bug in Wikipedia?

Somebody put up the sentence "james is in love with a stripper", and it doesn't appear on the edit page, so I can't delete it! Even though it's true, it won't go away. I've seen this type of problem mentioned on other talk pages--perhaps somebody's exploiting a bug in Wikipedia's framework? Whatever it is, if you could find a way to delete it, I'd appreciate it (and I bet James really would, whoever he is.) 65.172.233.90 06:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments moved from Social darwinism

a comment.

Hello,

I think the article was well written, and I appreciate its honesty. Having absolutely no idea what social darwinism was before reading the article, I found it informative.

If social darwinism contributed to justifying racist and imperialist behaviors, I think that "telling it like it is" does remain neutral. I hope that if this article is re-written, it includes a large portion of the information that exists already.

mosmic09—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosmic09 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 7 February 2007)

Fear not Mosmic09, what's happened is that the other article has been merged into this one rather than the way suggested above. More later, .. dave souza, talk 07:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (see Talk:Social darwinism for earlier comments) 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words?

"Some socialists allege that capitalists used social Darwinism to justify laissez-faire capitalism and social inequality."

-Why only state that "Some socialists" allege so? My EvoPsyc professor is very much a "right winger", and she has alleged that capitalists have used this to justify their deplorable "excesses". Hence, it should not be said ONLY that "some socialists" believe so, but that many others allege so also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.35 (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

While I agree that some non-Socialist, or even anti-Socialist, people agree with the critique, changing it would result in "Some allege that capitalists used ... " which is even more weasle-worded than the current text.

"Weasle-worded". Is that a word? I guess it is now. :) Justin Eiler 01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I changed it a while back to "Some allege that...". I see your point. But it is not the only phrasing alternate "Some socialists.." (aka "Some hippies...":P). Feel free to change it to something better; something without 'some'^_^.

EvoPsyc is of "Jewish origin"???

"...for example criticisms levelled at evolutionary psychology (which had a conversely, Jewish origin)." -Who the heck wrote the criticism section? How can a science have "Jewish [origins]"? Should sciences, even the origins of them, be attributed to nationalities? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.35 (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I've removed the claim (and done a bit of clean up as well) and quite agree that sciences should not be attributed to national or ethnic origin. It could possibly have been a bid to contrast (a putatively Jewish) EvoPsych against (the predominantly German) racialist theories of the early 1900s, or it could have been a derisive slur--or it could have been something else entirely. I don't think there's anyway to determine which, but it's gone now. Justin Eiler 01:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move to Social Darwinism

Having discussed the point here, there seems to be no reason not to move the page back to Social Darwinism to comply with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents section which concludes that "Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun:". As Darwinism derives from the proper noun "Darwin" it should always begin with a capital letter, thus Social Darwinism is correct. Anyone differ from this assessment? .. dave souza, talk 15:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to me--I've always wondered why it wasn't capitalized. Justin Eiler 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Support xCentaur | ☎ 17:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Completed move to Social Darwinism

Move carried out as discussed. ... dave souza, talk 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Arthur de Gobineau

I've mentioned the point that ideas published by Arthur de Gobineau were much more influential than Darwin in some concepts labelled "social Darwinism", particularly racism. It's my clear understanding that de Gobineau and the Nazis based their ideas round the fear that "Miscegenation" would weaken the superiority of races, while Darwin in contrast feared inbreeding, and Descent of Man has him attesting the vigour of "mongrels" of mixed race. Another contrast is between de Gobineau's ideas of clearly defined races, and the argument put by Darwin that there are always intermediates, so it's impossible to define a boundary (and hence only one species of human). I've tried having a look, but the sources I've found are neither very specific nor ideal as reliable sources: here's the links as a resource: Concepts of Race in Culture and Biology, evilution is good for you - Arthur de Gobineau: Essai sur l'Inégalité des Races Humaines, evilution is good for you - Pre-Darwinists (3) Arthur de Gobineau, Plausible Futures Newsletter If someone has a good source please add it to the article, I'm rather overloaded just now but will try to come back to this. dave souza, talk 17:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

White man's Burden?

I believe there also should be an addition of the "White man burden", which the caucasian race believed it was the white's duty to civilize the "uncivilized" and "Barbarians".

White man's Burden was used as an excuse to exploit many nations, ones from African mostly.

Idacoolboy 03:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)bk

Social Darwinism - Is/ought, and other terminology

What is the word, if there is one, that actions which improve one's inclusive fitness are the actions one should take, i.e propagating one's genes is the 'meaning of life'? There are some words I can think of that give some impression of this position, such as survivalism, evolutionism or existentialism, but they have other established meanings. Social Darwinism doesn't really capture the meaning either - it is more of a belief that evolution can be applied to societies, not that it should, while eugenics is more a utilitarian position, at least as Francis Galton used it. Is there any such word in the English language? 'Survival and reproductionism' would sum it up well, or a more accurate and elegant alternative might be 'selfish geneism'. Although we may not have any term for the concept it is a very important one in ethical thought, just as Hardy-Weinberg Principle is important to the framework of evolutionary biology.

At the bottom of this article we classify Social Darwinism as a racist ideology, yet we define it at the top:

Social Darwinism is the idea that Charles Darwin's theory can * be extended and applied to the social realm, i.e. that just as competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through "survival of the fittest" (not a scientific term itself), competition between individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.

How is that a racist term? Where does it suggest Social Darwinists point out that this is 'okay' or 'good'? The definition above seems relatively uncontroversial, and I would probably agree with it myself, especially in capitalist societies. I think we have some serious definition problems here. Perhaps there should be "and should" added where I have placed the * ? Richard001 08:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)