Difference between revisions of "Social Darwinism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m (Cleanup of racism paragraph)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
However, [[Ludwig von Mises]], an advocate of laissez-faire, argued in his book ''Human Action'' that social Darwinism contradicts the principles of [[liberalism]].
 
However, [[Ludwig von Mises]], an advocate of laissez-faire, argued in his book ''Human Action'' that social Darwinism contradicts the principles of [[liberalism]].
  
One would like to think that Darwin was not racist himself, but that would simply not be true. In ''The Descent of Man'' he predicted that the gap between humans and lower species would widen through the extinction of "evolutionary intermediates" such as gorillas and Negros. He declared that ''"the break will then be rendered wider, for it it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as at present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."'' <ref>'''''The Descent of Man,''''' Charles Darwin, 1871, p. 201</ref>  In this sense, he too was subject to the follies of his times.
+
The social ramifications of his Theory led Darwin to racist claims. In ''The Descent of Man'' he predicted that the gap between humans and lower species would widen through the extinction of "evolutionary intermediates" such as gorillas and Negros. He declared that ''"the break will then be rendered wider, for it it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as at present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."'' <ref>'''''The Descent of Man,''''' Charles Darwin, 1871, p. 201</ref>  In this sense, he too was subject to the contemporary misunderstanding of the nature of the human species.
  
 
== Social Darwinism ==
 
== Social Darwinism ==

Revision as of 20:35, July 27, 2007

Beginning in 1887, social scientists were using the term Social Darwinism to describe the application of the survival-of-the-fittest theory to social situations, although the concepts arose in the work of Thomas Malthus and Herbert Spencer before Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. Under this theory, the wealthiest or most powerful in society must be biologically superior, and less "fit" persons should die, i.e. "Survival of the Fittest".

Charles Darwin himself felt that social instincts such as sympathy and moral sentiments had also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies, and that all races and nations deserved sympathy.[1] In fact, scientists and commentators have noted as much recently.[2]

Some people began to apply the concept of survival of the fittest (a term which Darwin never used) to the racial struggles and wars that have always beset mankind. The horrific wars of the 20th century, employing shockingly brutal tactics, were encouraged by a belief in survival-of-the-fittest among humans.[Citation needed] While social Darwinism itself was applied to social and economic situations rather than military ones, it is easy to see how extreme versions of social Darwinism could justify physical struggles among races.

Some socialists attacked capitalist economics, especially laissez-faire economics, by equating it to social Darwinism. The grounds for this view were that the premise of social Darwinism rests on competition for scarce goods, and that one interpretation of capitalist economics involves a sink or swim attitude towards economic activity.

However, Ludwig von Mises, an advocate of laissez-faire, argued in his book Human Action that social Darwinism contradicts the principles of liberalism.

The social ramifications of his Theory led Darwin to racist claims. In The Descent of Man he predicted that the gap between humans and lower species would widen through the extinction of "evolutionary intermediates" such as gorillas and Negros. He declared that "the break will then be rendered wider, for it it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as at present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." [3] In this sense, he too was subject to the contemporary misunderstanding of the nature of the human species.

Social Darwinism

In the late 1800s and early 1900s in the United States, social Darwinism had a cruel and barbaric effect on attitudes towards the mentally disabled or feebleminded, as admitted by leading liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justices:[4]

Fueled by the rising tide of Social Darwinism, the "science" of eugenics, and the extreme xenophobia of those years,[5] leading medical authorities and others began to portray the "feebleminded" as a "menace to society and civilization . . . responsible in a large degree for many, if not all, of our social problems."[6] A regime of state-mandated segregation and degradation soon emerged that in its virulence and bigotry rivaled, and indeed paralleled, the worst excesses of Jim Crow. Massive custodial institutions were built to warehouse the retarded for life; the aim was to halt reproduction of the retarded and "nearly extinguish their race."[7] Retarded children were categorically excluded from public schools, based on the false stereotype that all were ineducable and on the purported need to protect nonretarded children from them.[8] State laws deemed the retarded "unfit for citizenship."[9]

References

  1. Darwin, Charles "The Descent of Man"
  2. NY Times, "Sociable Darwinism," http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/books/review/Angier.t.html
  3. The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin, 1871, p. 201
  4. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 461-63 (1985)(Marshall, J., dissenting, joined by Brennan and Blackmun, JJ.)
  5. On the role of these ideologies in this era, see K. Stampp, Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877, pp. 18-22 (1965).
  6. H. Goddard, The Possibilities of Research as Applied to the Prevention of Feeblemindedness, Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction 307 (1915), cited in A. Deutsch, The Mentally Ill in America 360 (2d ed. 1949). See also Fernald, The Burden of Feeblemindedness, 17 J. Psycho-Asthenics 87, 90 (1913) (the retarded "cause unutterable sorrow at home and are a menace and danger to the community"); Terman, Feeble-Minded Children in the Public Schools of California, 5 Schools & Society 161 (1917) ("[Only] recently have we begun to recognize how serious a menace [feeblemindedness] is to the social, economic and moral welfare of the state . . . . [It] is responsible . . . for the majority of cases of chronic and semi-chronic pauperism, and for much of our alcoholism, prostitution, and venereal diseases"). Books with titles such as "The Menace of the Feeble Minded in Connecticut" (1915), issued by the Connecticut School for Imbeciles, became commonplace. See C. Frazier, (Chairman, Executive Committee of Public Charities Assn. of Pennsylvania), The Menace of the Feeble-Minded In Pennsylvania (1913); W. Fernald, The Burden of Feeble-Mindedness (1912) (Mass.); Juvenile Protection Association of Cincinnati, The Feeble-Minded, Or the Hub to Our Wheel of Vice (1915) (Ohio). The resemblance to such works as R. Shufeldt, The Negro: A Menace to American Civilization (1907), is striking, and not coincidental.
  7. A. Moore, The Feeble-Minded in New York 3 (1911). This book was sponsored by the State Charities Aid Association. See also P. Tyor & L. Bell, Caring for the Retarded in America 71-104 (1984). The segregationist purpose of these laws was clear. See, e. g., Act of Mar. 22, 1915, ch. 90, 1915 Tex. Gen. Laws 143 (repealed 1955) (Act designed to relieve society of "the heavy economic and moral losses arising from the existence at large of these unfortunate persons").
  8. See Pennsylvania Assn. for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279, 294-295 (ED Pa. 1972); see generally S. Sarason & J. Doris, Educational Handicap, Public Policy, and Social History 271-272 (1979).
  9. Act of Apr. 3, 1920, ch. 210, § 17, 1920 Miss. Laws 288, 294.