An Essay on Social Darwinism

Submitted by- Sumit Saurav

“the immense diversity of living organisms resulted, according to Darwin, not from a plan of purpose but
from the accidents of history, from those changes in climate, weather, geology, and food supply, or the
increase or decrease in the presence of enemies to which an animal or plant might be subjected”

- C.N Degler(1991). In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Darwinism in American
social thought

Introduction

The article is an attempt to summarize the concept of Social Darwinism. One of the most recognized
terms of the 19th and 20th century, nevertheless difficult to define. The difficulty arises because the term
has very little to do with Charles Darwin’s idea of natural selection, rather, it appropriates his idea to
justify the social and political ends. Under the general label of ‘Social Darwinists’, people belonging to
this cohort defended competing ideas like Capitalism and Socialism, Competition and Cooperation. The
essay tries to understand the perspective of Social Darwinists as preached Herbert Spencer and William
Graham Sumner (as they are most often identified Social Darwinists of the late 19th century) and
potential flaws in their reasoning.

Social Darwinism an Overview

Very few terms in contemporary literature are as widely recognized as Social Darwinism and yet is so
difficult to define. The reasons for this elusiveness are many, prominent amongst them is the fact that it
is hardly associated with Charles Darwin or his theory of natural selection(Kretchmar, 2019). Secondly, a
large variety of “school of thought” has been associated with it, and some are contradictory to others,
making the development of a single definitive definition of the term elusive. Finally, the term has been
used by historians retrospectively, mostly in a pejorative way, to describe the ideas of philosophers and
sociologists who themselves never described/identified them as Social Darwinist(Hodgson, 2004). And
yet, it was one of the most influential ideas of the 19th and 20th century. Let us consciously accept the
fact that a precise definition of Social Darwinism is elusive and almost impossible to frame and try to
understand its genesis and evolution.

It is very much logical to start the exploration of Social Darwinism with its name itself. The name consists
of the word “Darwinism”, because of that it automatically signals an association with Charles Darwin.
But, it should be immediately noted that it has nothing to do with Charles Darwin and everything to do
with Herbert Spencer. As Stephen T. Asma has noted, “What is known as social Darwinism should really
be referred to as Social Spencerism”. Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin were contemporary; many
scholars like Douglas Allchin have proposed that the fundamental tenet of Social Darwinism- “survival of
the fittest”- predates both Darwin and Spencer. As Allchin has noted, “the basic doctrine now labeled
Social Darwinism did not originate with Darwin himself. Darwin was no Social Darwinist. Quite the
contrary: Darwin opened the way for understanding how a moral society can evolve” (Allchin, 2007).
Some example of Social Darwinist perspective expressed before Darwin and Spencer are by Thomas
Hobbes (in the mid-1600s)- he described the primitive state of nature as a war of each against all and for
him, a supreme individual, if left unchecked, would eclipse the society. Similarly, Thomas Malthus (1798)
in his “Essay on the Principle of Population” also expressed the Social Darwinist perspective. Graham
Sumner, a sociologist, and Yale professor was one of the most visible defenders of Social Darwinism in
the United States. Many described him as Spencer’s “American Deputy”(Kretchmar, 2019).

Now, if we assume Spencer, Darwin, and Sumner as the three most important characters responsible for
the genesis of Social Darwinism, then we have to ask the question as to how these three approached or
contributed to the discussion around Social Darwinism. Spencer approached it from a philosopher’s
perspective and largely used the popular press to communicate his ideas. He was the one who coined
the term contentious term- “survival of the fittest”(The Economist, 2005). Darwin approached it from
the biologist’s perspective and he was quite respected in the scientific community. Spencer initially
applied his idea -Survival of the fittest- to the winnowing of the firms in the ultra-competitive
environment of Victorian Capitalism. After the publication of Darwin’s seminal work, “on the Origin of
the Species”, he saw the association between his bon mot (witty remark) and evolution and quickly
turned to the theory of natural selection. Being a contemporary, Darwin found the application of his
theory in the realm of sociology by Spencer perplexing(Asma, 1993). On the other hand, Sumner,
despite being a professor, was a practitioner and looked for ways to put the theories at work especially
in the field of sociology. He exploited Darwin’s idea by using them in formulating social policy on
immigration, poverty, taxes, and education. Understanding the difference between the idea of Spencer,
Darwin, and Sumner is a good first step in understanding the concept of Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner:

As we have noted in the last paragraph, the most important aspect of Spencer’s and Sumner’s idea was
the use of the theory of natural selection in the realm of sociology. They used Darwin’s theory to justify
preconceived social and political beliefs not based on sound empirical evidence. Many scholars like Rick
Tilman and Douglas Allchin have pointed that, “although Darwin’s treatise The Origin of Species has an
enormous scientific value but is adequately ambiguous to be rendered for various social and political
interpretation.

Although the Social Darwinist ideas of Spencer and Sumner have been largely discredited, it is their
citation of Darwin’s work that gave them standing and acceptance in the first place. For instance,
Spencer has proposed his theory of “Survival of the fittest” many years before the publication of “The
Origin of the Species”. But it is only after its publication and the fact that Darwin incorporated this
phrase in his work provided credibility to Spencer’s proposition and led many to believe that Spencer’s
idea rests on the same solid scientific research as Darwin’s. However, this is not the only factors that
caused widespread popularity of Social Darwinism in the late 19th century. The fact that it scientifically
explained the better social and economic condition of the educated middle and upper class, further
accentuated its appeal amongst them.

Now, that we know Social Darwinists were less bothered about following the scientific laws and more
worried about furthering their social agenda. So, the next obvious question arises, what was the social
agenda that Social Darwinists? Although at times they promoted conflicting viewpoints, the type of
Social Darwinism preached by Spencer and Sumner was most pervasive. According to Richard
Hofstadter, who published his seminal work-Social Darwinism in American Thought in 1940, the Social
Darwinism consists of three elements: the idea of survival of the fittest; Classical Economics, with
emphasis on laissez-faire; and a protestant work ethic(Kretchmar, 2019).

In short, Social Darwinism as propagated by Spencer and Sumner as an idea lends strong support to
capitalism and the free market and oppose government intervention of any kind. “Spencer proposed-
Free competition is a natural law of economics and the finest guarantor of society's welfare. Any
interference by Governmental with the natural law of competition would hinder social progress and
ultimately would result in economic misfortune” (as cited in Kretchmar, 2019). In his publication What
Social Classes Owe to Each Other, Sumner explained what he believes, in an economy a person only
earns what his contribution is worth. According to him, competition is equivalent to the law of gravity
and any attempt to regulate it is tantamount to regulating gravity, thus futile (as cited in Kretchmar,
2019).

This perspective of Social Darwinism has serious repercussions for the jobless and poor. It opposes any
kind of help given to jobless and poor in the form of subsidies or any other ways on the premise that it
would be against the process of natural development, that is interpreted as survival of the fittest. It
posits that since jobless and poor have demonstrated that they are weak and inferior, thus unfit to
survive. Other sections of the society should stand by and watch, they can take some solace in the fact
that it is destined by nature to transpire(Asma, 1993). Equipped with these logics Social Darwinists
opposed the public policies of all sort, including universal free education. According to their interpreted,
these policies are a betrayal of economic individualism and an oppressive concession to State
collectivism.

Our analysis of this school of thought is not complete without understanding the flaws in their theory.
Many scholars have written about, how this cohort of Social Darwinists have wrongly interpreted and
applied Darwin’s theory. Allchin pointed out that biological processes of natural selection do not explain
the political power and social class of human beings(Allchin, 2007). They viewed adoption to the
environment as a sign of progress, where Darwin’s theory posits that evolution progresses without
purpose, by accidents of history(Allchin, 2007).

Social Darwinists, all of them to some extent, are guilty of abusing Darwinism for sociopolitical ends.
Spencer and Sumner utilized it to defend laissez-faire capitalism and social hierarchy. Others, however,
utilized it for far more malicious ends. The Nazi Holocaust and eugenics movement provide few such
examples.

Villain or Misinterpreted?

It is easy to caricature Spencer and Sumner as villains, as they advocated a competitive and aggressive
mentality within society while displaying little or no care and concern for the less fortunate once. Many
prominent scholars like Hofstadter, a prominent historian of the 20th century, have played an eminent
role in cementing this perspective through much of their work. Caudill contends, however, that “he and
others like him often disregarded the intricacy and nuance of Spencer and Sumner's beliefs”. For
instance, Spencer, much like Darwin, had recognized the salience of collaboration and competition in
evolution. While Spencer resisted the government’s intervention, he was a believer of private self-help.
He proposed the upper echelon should help the lower echelon develop the instinct to help themselves.
He wrote about justice and generosity as necessary elements in any social structure (as cited in
Kretchmar, 2019).

Spencer and Sumner have espoused Darwin’s theory to defend capitalism, others like socialists and
nationalists have also used the evolutionary principle to defend the “naturalness” of their socio-political
system as well. Thus, the application of Darwin’s theory has been applied uniformly across the political
and economic in the realm of sociology. Because the term- Social Darwinism is applied retrospectively
part of the complexity is lost.

References:

1) Allchin, D. (2007). Social Un-Darwinism. How does society relate to nature in an evolutionary.
Retrieved July 20, 2019, from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=59fa1e6f-c7c7-4723-a400-
cf9c6bf4e870%40sessionmgr4008

2) Asma, S. T. (1993). The new social Darwinism: deserving your destitution: Retrieved July 20, 2019,
from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=4cd2c6c0-65e3-43c7-a5bf-
2c5726d88edc%40sessionmgr4008

3) Hodgson, G. M. (2004). Social Darwinism in Anglophone Academic Journals: A Contribution to the

History of the Term. Retrieved from http://www.geoffrey-
hodgson.info/user/image/socialdarwinism.pdf

4) Kretchmar, J. (2019). Social Darwinism. In Salem Press Encyclopedia. Retrieved from

http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=622ac141-4603-4e76-8a39-
20d989de18b0%40sdc-v-
sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3D%3D#AN=89185708&db=ers

5) The Economist. (2005). The story of man - Evolution. Retrieved July 20, 2019, from
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2005/12/20/the-story-of-man