SOME CRITICISMSMS OF SOCIAL DARWINISM
J. Wagner
First Year Preceptorial
The central claim of so-called "Social Darwinism," that ruthless competition in human affairs leads to "evolutionary" improvement, may seem persuasive at first–especially for those who find it politically appealing. But Social Darwinism, which peaked in the last century and is still influential in popular thought, is seen by most contemporary biologists, philosophers and social scientists as fundamentally flawed. Summarized here are some of the most widely recognized shortcomings of Social Darwinism.
1. Neglect of Darwin's evidence for cooperation. Although Darwin recognized social cooperation as a major factor in the survival strategies of many species, particularly humans, Social Darwinists generally overlook cooperation in order to emphasize (and presumably justify) ruthless competition.
2. Confusion of evolution with progress. Darwin's theory only claimed that natural selection produced evolutionary change. Since there is no particular direction implied in this (the gradual extinction of humankind or of all complex life forms would be an evolutionary event) evolution is not to be confused with progress in the sense of movement toward a higher or more desirable state. It is therefore illogical to look to supposed evolutionary principles for moral guidance (technically, this is a variant of the "naturalistic fallacy"). Contrary to the underlying assumption of Social Darwinism, evolution has no necessary connection with the advance of happiness, beauty, goodness, or any of the things humans are interested in promoting. Indeed, the anthropocentrism implied in the Social Darwinist interpretation could be seen as fundamentally anti-Darwinian.
3. Confusion of descriptive and prescriptive laws. Darwin's theories of change were descriptive generalizations which, like the law of gravity, would have to be rewritten if events contradicted them. By contrast, the "laws of nature" proposed by the Social Darwinists appear to be prescriptive laws, as evidenced by the constant admonitions against "breaking" them. For example, one English Social Darwinist worried that the Irish, the lower classes, and other clearly "unfit" people might out-reproduce the upper-class Englishmen who were obviously more "fit" to exist. A truly Darwinian concept of fitness is descriptive, determined after the fact by observing which variations have more reproductive success. Social Darwinists, however, tend to use a different concept of "fitness, which seems to be determined a priori, in a manner unrelated to any clear scientific criteria and suspiciously congruent with cultural, national, racial and class chauvinism.
4. Confusion of social and genetic processes. Social Darwinist arguments rest on the sometimes unstated assumption that differences in social position are based on differences in genetic merit. If the wretchedness of the poor is based on their biological inferiority, it might conceivably be argued that they should be kept "in their place" or even eliminated from the population; however, if it is based on wretched social conditions, it would make more sense to take responsibility for improving those conditions. The assumption that one's social position is determined by genetic factors is not supported by scientific evidence.
5. Underestimation of the individual's stake in community. The Social Darwinist portrayal of the individual as owing nothing to anyone and having minimal interest in the fate of others is an inadequate account of the human condition. It belittles the fact that we become human through the medium of culture and society, and it disregards the fundamental premise of all ethics, which is (as ecologist Aldo Leopold's puts it in another FP reading) "that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts."
Darwin contradicts Social Darwinism:
"As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artifical barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races."
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 1871