As I follow current events, I sometimes wonder if Social Darwinism is still alive after all. Social Darwinism, the philosophy of the late 19th and 20th centuries, applied Charles Darwin’s evolutionary ‘survival of the fittest’ to society. The English philosopher, Herbert Spencer, saw life as a struggle for existence with unregulated competition guaranteeing progress.
In 1859, Darwin published The Origin of Species, which explained his theory of animal and plant evolution based on “natural selection”. Soon afterwards, philosophers, sociologists, and others began to adopt the idea that human society had also evolved. Spencer was a prominent Social Darwinist in the late 19th century, who used Darwin’s theory of “evolution to justify extreme laissez-faire capitalism as natural and right in the sense that free competition ensured the survival of the fittest.” Darwin’s theory inspired Spencer to write more books, showing how society evolved. With the financial support of friends, Spencer wrote more than a dozen volumes in 36 years. His books convinced many that the destiny of civilisation rested with those who were the ‘fittest’.
Social Darwinism became very popular and influential in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in Europe. Its ideas are still around after such a long time, and it has been thoroughly examined philosophically and scientifically around the globe. Some of its followers opined that the poor are poor because they are biologically unfit and/or morally poor, interfering with the evolutionary process. Further, the wealthy are wealthy because they are biologically superior, and morally they are fit enough to survive in the competitive struggle for existence.
Moreover, it can be said that strong is good and weak is bad. Therefore, the strong, more advanced nations undermine and dominate the weaker nations because they are more progressed along the evolutionary scale. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries these ideas led to colonialism, imperialism, and racism (the Anglo-Saxon and Aryan races being superior because of natural selection). Some historians say that Germany was the first country in the world that adopted Social Darwinism, promoting racist policies and Hitlerism. Adolf Hitler titled himself as a Social Darwinist and justified the killing of Jews and blacks in Europe.
Those who wrote on Social Darwinism in the late 19th century stated that any attempt to improve society is unjustifiable either through government or otherwise. Further, they opined that if natural selection is allowed to work through unregulated competition, only biologically fit people will survive and poor and unfit people would die. Thus, Social Darwinism of necessity supports status quo conservatism: current traditions, institutions, or privileged groups are the superior outcome of evolutionary natural selection. Also, Social Darwinism supports a laissez-faire economics (no government interference): natural selection will weed out the unfit while the fit prove their biological and/or moral superiority by becoming wealthy.
Adam Smith is often quoted (The Wealth of Nations, 1776) to justify laissez-faire economics. However, in the historical context in which he wrote against the monopolies, he argued that government should not be ruled by business. Smith observed that the government of his time was ruled by business, which was unfair and unjustifiable and created monopolies that interfered with the natural adjustment of prices. In reality, Smith opined that business people should not be rulers, and actually government should rule and promote harmony and unfair competition. Smith further disregarded Social Darwinism on philosophical and scientific grounds.
The survival of the fittest is not some universal truth to be applied to society at large. The myth that unregulated competition allows the fit to become wealthy and powerful while the unfit deserve to be poor and powerless is not true. Other carry-over myths are that attempts to improve society are wrong and that government should not promote the wellbeing of all people.
In my understanding, Social Darwinism is alive, and advanced capitalist states base their capitalism on Social Darwinism to justify unfair competition and to dominate the weaker nations. US laissez-faire capitalism, under the rubrics of the free market and deregulation, oppose it in varying degrees: welfare, social security, universal healthcare or insurance, a sustainable minimum wage, affordable housing, low-cost college education, and any other programme that will help poor people get ahead, not to mention government regulation of almost anything. The pretext for all those positions is letting the free market operate, just as the pretext for giving tax cuts primarily to the rich, not to the lower or middle class, is trickle-down economics. Pretexts aside, however, the far right practices Social Darwinism in all but name; the poor and the lower middle class are expected to live within their dwindling incomes, even as the gap between the rich and poor widens. It obviously still exists, but it takes time to build up and become strong. For instance, the Holocaust was a prime example, and considering it was only 70 years or so ago, there is a strong possibility it could happen again.
The writer is an attorney at law and lecturer in Law of International Trade and Succession. He can be reached at [email protected]