Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:48:48 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tracy
Hamilton) wrote:

[...]

>> >> Many, if not most, of the people at least seem familiar
>> >> with the issues. 
>> >
>> >I don't sense that many have read Darwin's Descent of Man very
>> >carefully.
>> 
>> Damn!  And that was a brand-new Mark VIII irony meter.
>
>Maybe he doesn't know the subject of discussion in talk.origins.
>
>On second thought, we really don't discuss evolution as
>often as beer, and puns.  Unfortunately, that is due to the
>poor quality of the opposition.  Many posts result from us having 
>to do it ourselves, but lately few have done it with any style.
>
>Now if "Searle" was interested we could discuss all sorts of things:
>
>What Social Darwinism is.

I've been reading Peter J. Bowler's _Charles Darwin: The Man and His
Influence_ and he has an interesting take on it.  Of course, the first
problem is to choose which "brand" of Social Darwinism you want to focus
on, since it is really just a term of abuse.  But if we pick on Spencer as
the archtype, then, Bowler points out:

   Spencer's main argument for individualism was based on a very 
   different mechanism that has far more in common with the 
   Lamarckism which he saw as the main driving force of animal 
   evolution. The purpose of struggle was not to eliminate the 
   unfit but to force them to become fitter. The miseries attendant
   upon failure were the best possible way of educating the lazy so 
   that they would be more industrious and more enterprising in 
   future. Eliminating congenital stupidity was only a secondary 
   factor -- the vast majority of people had the ability to function
   adequately in the world if only they put their minds to it, and
   the advantage of unrestrained individualism was that it forced 
   everyone to maximize their efforts and exploit their initiative
   to the full. Evolution for the species came about through the
   accumulation of many generations of individual self-improvement,
   which Spencer assumed would be transmitted from parent to offspring
   through education. Eventually the habit of self-reliance would 
   become so deeply ingrained that it would be instinctive. Thus 
   Spencer's 'social Darwinism' turns out to be really a form of 
   'social Lamarckism'. 

Which brings up another point.  Is it just coincidence that the period of
greatest interest in Spencerian social policy and the greatest Western
imperialism based on the "white man's burden" just happened to coincide
with the "eclipse of Darwinism" (1880s - 1930s)?  Absent Darwin, would
Lamarckism still have eventually provided a "justification" for Western
hegemony?

>The difference between describing how something is 
>and saying how it should be.

Ummm . . . one of them is called "science"?

>The different movements that appropriated Darwinism (natural
>selection) vs other other ideas around at the time.

Or, _vice versa_ the different people who called themselves "Darwinists"
who never accepted (or not fully) natural selection.  

>The difference between natural selection and artificial selection (breeding).
>The extent of Darwin's prejudices vs others of the time.
>Arguments put forth about superiority of ones own group
>over others.
>Whether the grouping was based on class or race, both or neither.
>The criteria they used for determining "superiority".
>Why eugenics as a movement failed (a good deal of blame goes to Nazism).

So, Ambrose, are you up for some real discussions? . . .

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.

                - Robert Carroll -