Molly
Mr. Kirkwood
Honors United States History I
4 March 2005
Social Darwinism and Progressivism
Human history has long encompassed the belief that some classes of people are better than others. One such example is the theory proposed by British sociologist Herbert Spencer. Spencer believed that the rich class was more fit to be successful in life and the business world, much like the biological theory proposed by Charles Darwin. Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Social Darwinism was a model for late nineteenth century American laissez- faire capitalism; however, it lost support in 1912 when progressive reform legislation was passed.
Charles Darwin was an English scientist who formed a theory of evolution. “Darwin said that earth’s species had changed, or evolved, from other forms into their present forms"( Skelton 92). This process did not take place overnight, but took millions of years to happen. Darwin describes this process as natural selection . Natural selection, as stated by Dictionary.com is:
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution,
only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit
Their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while
those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
Darwin knew that there was great competition between members of the same species to survive. “Any advantage an individual can gain helps it beat out others for food and space. This makes that plant or animal more fit to survive” (Skelton 93). The competition between species was immense, and to help certain species survive, Darwin noticed that nature bestowed them with certain qualities to make them more competitive:
Darwin also saw that nature provides some individuals of a group or species with traits that help some individuals survive better than others. These stronger, more fit members of a species are more likely to survive and reproduce. They then pass these survival traits onto their offspring. Members of the group who don’t have these advantages are less likely to survive and produce young, and eventually their kind dies out (93).
Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest was applied to society by Herbert Spencer in his theory of social Darwinism. This theory stated that “humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in survival of the fittest” (Social Darwinism). Social Darwinism compared Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution regarding plants and animals to people and their competition between social groups. Spencer believed that “man is physically an animal, and therefore the natural laws of the new biology applied as much to him as to the alligator or the songbird. Spencer also believed that groups, or societies had also evolved, and thus society itself was an organism” (Andrews 2). Social Darwinists considered some people more fit to survive than other, the least fit being the poor and unemployed. They also believed that certain people had traits that allowed them to compete more easily for ‘fittest.’ People who agreed with Spencer believed that government should not meddle with the natural competition between the strong and the weak since it would give certain people unfair footing in the competition.
Some social Darwinists argue that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty. Instead, they advocate a laissez- faire political economic system that favors competition and self-interest in social and business affairs. (Social Darwinism).
Herbert Spencer was adamant about the government not providing programs to benefit the underprivileged:
Another application of a biological concept to human behavior was the notion that any attempt to provide welfare for the poor was a tragically misguided mistake. Feeding or housing the poor simply permitted them to survive and to transmit their unfitness to their children, who in turn, pass it onto their children (Hofstader).
Spencer even took it so far as to blame organizations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children because it encouraged protective legislation. Herbert Spencer once wrote, “Society advances, where its fittest members are allowed to assert their fitness with the least hindrance.’ He went on to argue that the unfit should “not be prevented from dying out” (Constitutional Rights). Spencer believed that the eradication of the ‘unfit’ class would allow society to evolve, just as Darwin stated that plants and animals evolve.
There were even citations in literature referring to Spencer’s theory. Charlotte Perkins Gilmann once spoke in a poem about social Darwinism:
Then science comes with solemn air, and shows us social laws,
explaining how the poor are there from a purely natural cause.
‘Tis natural for low and high to struggle and to strive;
‘Tis natural for the worst to die and the better to survive. (Hofstadter)
Once introduced, Herbert Spencer’s theory of social Darwinism achieved the support of countless Americans, including intellectuals and business men who enthusiastically embraced his theory to justify laissez- faire, or unrestricted capitalism. He felt the state should do nothing to alleviate the hardships of the ‘unfit’ so as to make room for the fit (Hodge and Rodick 227).
The term laissez-faire refers to ‘hands off governing’, with little or no interference from the government, where businesses are not controlled. Social Darwinists were substantial advocates of laissez faire governing. “Spencer believed that the government had only two purposes; one to defend the nation against foreign invasion, two, to protect citizens and their property from criminals. Any other government action was over legislation” (Constitutional Rights ). This meant that the government was overly involved in aiding one group at the expense of another. Spencer believed that aiding the poor was considered over legislation:
He opposed government aid to the poor. He said that it encouraged laziness and vice.
He objected to a public school system since it forced taxpayers to pay for the
education of other people’s children. He opposed laws regulating housing,
sanitation, and health conditions because they interfered with the rights of property
owners. (Constitutional Rights )
Spencer’s outlook, though harsh, provided equal footing for the ideal competition between the classes. According to Spencer, the population of unfit people would slowly decline. They would eventually become extinct because of their failure to compete. The government, in his view, should not take any actions to prevent this from happening, since this would go against the evolution of civilization (Constitutional Rights).
Many issues surfaced as a result of social Darwinism and its views of laissez- faire governing such as working conditions for men, women, and children:
Worker’s wages and working conditions were unregulated. Millions of men,
women, and children worked long hours for low pay in dangerous factories and mines.
There were few work-safety regulations, no worker compensation laws, no company
pensions, and no government social security. (Constitutional Rights)
Spencer’s ideas for the way his theory would work did not always turn out as planned. He believed that there was no need for labor unions, which resulted in unsafe working conditions for many laborers, but, “Labor union movements emerged, but often collapsed during times of high unemployment. Local judges, who often shared the laissez- faire views of employers, issued court orders outlawing worker strikes and boycotts” (Constitutional Rights ). Spencer agreed with these local legal actions.
Spencer argued against legislation that regulated working conditions, maximum hours, and minimum wages. He said they interfered with the property rights of employers. He believed labor unions took away the freedom of individual workers to negotiate with employers. (Constitutional Rights )
In a broader example of his theory, around 1890, laissez- faire capitalism gained the unrelenting support of the Supreme Court. “The Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional many state laws that attempted to regulate such things as working conditions, minimum wages for women, and child labor” (Constitutional Rights ). The courts, industrialists, and others combined in the early and mid 1890’s in their defense of social Darwinism.
Spencer’s theory favored opportunities for competition “with capitalism and society itself needing unlimited business competition to thrive. By the late 1800s, however, monopolies, not competing companies, increasingly controlled the production and prices of goods in many American societies” (Constitutional Rights ).
As time went on, different outcomes than he theorized came to pass in the economic system. Support for social Darwinism and laissez- faire capitalism began to wane, however, around the end of the 19th century due to influences from reform legislation supporters like Theodore Roosevelt. At this time, “both the federal government and many states had adopted progressive reform legislation aimed at ending child labor and improving working conditions” (Constitutional Rights ). The turn of the century was followed by a drastic change in the support for social Darwinism:
A wave of political reform, known as the progressive movement, washed over the United States as the new century opened. Progressivism was inspired by muckraking journalists, who exposed corruption, the adulteration of food and drugs, and the exploitation of labor; by socialists, who called attention to the growing class divisions in the industrial United States; by ministers of the gospel alarmed at the grinding poverty in which many Americans lived; and by feminists who clamored for fair treatment for families, women, and children. Theodore Roosevelt embraced many of the tenets of progressivism when he became president in 1901. (Hofstader)
The decline in support for social Darwinism also increased when many people began to associate it as the leading cause of Nazism in Germany, where it was thought that one race of people was better than another (Social Darwinism ). Social Darwinism continued to fall into disfavor with many groups.
During this same period, advances in anthropology also discredited social Darwinism. German American anthropologist Franz Boas and American anthropologists Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict showed that human culture sets people apart from animals. By shifting the emphasis away from biology and onto culture, these anthropologists undermined social Darwinism’s biological foundations. (Social Darwinism )
Economists and sociologist of the late 1800s also wrote criticisms of his theory that helped turned the tide against Spencer. Albion Small wrote in 1897:
Mr. Herbert Spencer has been a much mixed blessing. He has probably done
more than any man of recent times to set a fashion of semi- learned thought but he has
lived to hear himself pronounced an anachronism by men who were once his disciples.
Mr. Spencer’s sociology is of the past, not of the present. (Hofstadter)
In 1851, Herbert Spencer proposed a theory stating that our society, just like plants and animals in Charles Darwin’s theory, competes for survival:
Herbert Spencer and his followers believed that human society is always in
kind of evolutionary process in which the fittest- which happen to be those who can
make lots of money-, were chosen to dominate. There were armies of unfit, the poor,
who simply would not compete. And just as nature weeds out the unfit, an enlightened
society ought to weed out its unfit and permit them to die off so as not to weaken the racial
stock. To Spencer, the fittest person’s inherited such qualities as industriousness, frugality,
the desire to own property, and the ability to accumulate wealth. The unfit inherited
Laziness, stupidity, and immortality. (Svelton 89)
Spencer believed that the poor, or unfit, should not be given help since it would interrupt the natural competition. As a result, safety and working conditions for many people were jeopardized. His theory promoted the idea of laissez- faire, or unrestricted capitalism, where there was no interference from the government. The outcome, he believed, would be ‘the most fit’ members of society becoming the richest and most successful. Spencer’s theory did not come without complications however, such as the formation of monopolies, which undermined it’s expectations. Near the turn of the century, progressive reform legislation became prevalent and support for Spencer’s theory diminished. Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Social Darwinism was a model for late nineteenth century American laissez- faire capitalism; however, it lost its support in 1912 when progressive reform legislation was passed.
Andrews, Lois. “Social Darwinism- The Development of the Intellectual Mind.”
1 Jan. 2005 < http://www.theaaccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no1/lra.>.
Constitutional Rights Foundation Bill of Rights in Action. Social Darwinism and
American Laissez-Faire Capitalism. 91.2. 14 Jan. 2005 <http://www.crf-
usa.org/bria/bria19.>
Hodye , Jonathan, and Gregory Rodick. The Cambridge Companion to Darwin.
Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2003.
Hofstader, Richard A. Social Darwinism in American Thought. Philadelphia:
University of Penn, 1944. History Resource Center: United States.
Thompson/Gale. WTHS. 23 Jan. 2005.
Social Darwinism. 21 Jan. 2005 <http://www.encarta.mdmsx>.
Svelton, Renee. Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection. Huppagauge:
Eisen Durwood, 1987.