This post is, in a way, about something Charles Darwin said.
There were two important 200th birthdays yesterday: Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. Both born on February 12, 1809, they had their bicentennials celebrated this week. In the USA, it seems that (perhaps understandibly) that the Lincoln celebrations overshadowed those for Shrewesbury's favorite son.
that connects Darwin and Lincoln and their influence on the modern world.
Well, that's what Darwin was all about, right?
Darwin did use the phrase "natural selection." As for "survival of the fittest," it is more complicated.
The meaning of "survival of the fittest" as we have come to know it traces its origins to the British philosopher Herbert Spencer.
That's not the way, incidentally, that "survival of the fittest" is usually used, though. The more popular use is more polemical, incendiary and mistaken.
What is this great societal wrong, you ask? Well, social Darwinism, that's what.
Social Darwinism is often linked with the (perceived) evils of capitalism. This is done thusly: if capitalism is based on competition between competing parties in pursuing incentives, then it is no small step to see that those who are successful are in some way inherently better than those who are not. This means that capitalists believe that the poor are somehow inherently deficient and therefore lesser beings than the rich.
Spencer believed this. Francis Galton, the originator of the idea of eugenics, believed this. Thomas Malthus may have hinted at aspects of this.
But...is this connection appropriate?
While it is certain that Herbert Spencer thought that society was evolving toward greater freedom for individuals, it is less certain that he believed that he thought the poor were inherently inferior. Francis Galton, while he believed that "more fit" people should reproduce more, he certainly didn't advocate genocide on the poor. He merely wanted to reform morals so that the poor would (in his estimation) become more fit. Thomas Malthus, while related to these notions, was more concerned with food supply and land reform. In any event, furthermore, he might have been wrong.
These qualifications, while interesting, do not answer the above question. So, is capitalism inherently flawed and elitist?
The best answer to this (in this situation, anyway) comes from Ludwig von Mises, one of the leading lights of the Austrian school of economics.
Mises argued that social Darwinism fundamentally contradicts the classical liberal ideas that helped give birth to our modern notion of capitalism and competitive markets. He says this is the case because the traits that lend to social cooperation (rather than "natural" aggression) are those that lead to maximize offspring in a given environment.
So, great. Where does this leave us?
It leaves us with the idea that, before using a phrase as loaded as "social Darwinism," it would behoove all of us to understand what it means and that in reducing complex ideas to tag-lines, we often do those ideas a disservice and make them less (rather than more) clear.
So, keep it simple, stupid, but don't make it so simple that it becomes stupid, stupid.
Social Darwinism is often linked with the (perceived) evils of capitalism. This is done thusly: if capitalism is based on competition between competing parties in pursuing incentives, then it is no small step to see that those who are successful are in some way inherently better than those who are not. This means that capitalists believe that the poor are somehow inherently deficient and therefore lesser beings than the rich.
Spencer believed this. Francis Galton, the originator of the idea of eugenics, believed this. Thomas Malthus may have hinted at aspects of this.
But...is this connection appropriate?
While it is certain that Herbert Spencer thought that society was evolving toward greater freedom for individuals, it is less certain that he believed that he thought the poor were inherently inferior. Francis Galton, while he believed that "more fit" people should reproduce more, he certainly didn't advocate genocide on the poor. He merely wanted to reform morals so that the poor would (in his estimation) become more fit. Thomas Malthus, while related to these notions, was more concerned with food supply and land reform. In any event, furthermore, he might have been wrong.
These qualifications, while interesting, do not answer the above question. So, is capitalism inherently flawed and elitist?
The best answer to this (in this situation, anyway) comes from Ludwig von Mises, one of the leading lights of the Austrian school of economics.
Mises argued that social Darwinism fundamentally contradicts the classical liberal ideas that helped give birth to our modern notion of capitalism and competitive markets. He says this is the case because the traits that lend to social cooperation (rather than "natural" aggression) are those that lead to maximize offspring in a given environment.
So, great. Where does this leave us?
It leaves us with the idea that, before using a phrase as loaded as "social Darwinism," it would behoove all of us to understand what it means and that in reducing complex ideas to tag-lines, we often do those ideas a disservice and make them less (rather than more) clear.
So, keep it simple, stupid, but don't make it so simple that it becomes stupid, stupid.
1 comment:
Yeah, that's pretty much Lamarck in a nutshell.
When in doubt, you can always use the notion put forth my Lamarck that a Giraffe's neck grew longer because its ancestors stretched to get higher leaves.
Counter that with Darwin in that the ancestors of the giraffe with the longer necks were able to out compete other ancestors, and were therefore stronger and better suited to survive and pass along their traits.
With Lamarck, the ancestors are doing the changing whereas with Darwin, the descendants are doing the changing.
Post a Comment