Assignment task:
The minimum word count for this assignment is 200.
Your textbook describes Social Darwinism and places it into a historical context. It also tries to give you a sense of the enormous impact the idea had on American institutions/education/ethics/business practices/politics, etc. What are the pros and cons of Social Darwinism? Does it lead to inequality and is this inequality unavoidable in society?
DO NOT try to analyze this from a modern perspective. Try to tap into the mindset from the period when it was promoted, keeping in mind the power of the Zeitgeist. Also, keep in mind that most behavior is motivated. What were the MOTIVATORS? What was the state (CONDITION) of the country? Were RESOURCES in short supply? What possible Justification if any, could there have been to implement Social Darwinism?
Social Darwinism
Spencer argued that the development of all aspects of the universe is evolutionary, including human character and social institutions, in accordance with the principle of "survival of the fittest" (a phrase Spencer coined). It was this emphasis on what came to be called social Darwinism-applying the theory of evolution to human nature and society-that met with such enthusiasm in America.
In Spencer's Utopian view, if the principle of survival of the fittest were allowed to operate freely, then only the best would survive. Therefore, human perfection was inevitable as long as no action was taken to interfere with the natural order of things. Individualism and a laissez-faire economic system were vital, whereas governmental attempts to regulate business and industry and welfare (even subsidies for education, housing, and the poor) were opposed.
People and organizations were to be left alone to develop themselves and society in their own ways, just as other living species were left to develop and adapt to their natural environments. Any assistance from the state would interfere with the natural evolutionary process.
People, programs, businesses, or institutions that could not adapt were unfit for survival and should be allowed to perish (to become "extinct") for the betterment of society as a whole. If government continued to support poorly functioning enterprises, then these enterprises would endure, ultimately weakening society and violating the basic law of nature that only the strongest and most fit shall survive. Again, Spencer's idea was that by ensuring that only the best survived, society could eventually achieve perfection.
This message was compatible with America's individualistic spirit, and the phrases "survival of the fittest" and "the struggle for existence" quickly became part of the national consciousness. Railroad tycoon James J. Hill reiterated Spencer's message: "The fortunes of railroad companies are determined by the law of the survival of the fittest." From John D.
Rockefeller: "The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest" (Hill and Rockefeller as quoted in Hofstadter, 1992, p. 45). Clearly the phrases reflected the American society of the late nineteenth century; the United States was a living embodiment of Spencer's ideas.
This pioneer nation was being settled by hardworking people who believed in free enterprise, self-sufficiency, and independence from government regulation. And they knew all about the survival of the fittest from their daily lives. Land was freely available to those with the courage, cunning, and ability to take it and to make a living from it. The principles of natural selection were vividly demonstrated in everyday experiences, particularly on the Western frontier, where survival and success depended on one's ability to adapt to the demands of a hostile environment. Those who could not adapt did not survive.
The American historian Frederick Jackson Turner described the survivors in these terms: That coarseness and strength combined with acuteness and inquisitiveness; that practical, inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients; that masterful grasp of material things ... powerful to ef ect great ends; that restless, nervous energy; that dominant individualism. (Turner, 1947, p. 235)
Herbert Spencer
The people of the United States were oriented toward the practical, the useful, and the functional. In its pioneering stages, American psychology mirrored these qualities. For this reason, the United States was more accepting than other nations of evolutionary theory. American psychology became a functional psychology because evolution and the functional spirit were in keeping with Americans' basic temperament. Spencer's views were compatible with the American ethos, and that is why his philosophical system influenced every field of learning. The famous American preacher Henry Ward Beecher wrote to Spencer: