Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism
| Right | Section | Contents |
|---|---|---|
| Freedom of Expression | Philosophical Origins | Social Darwinists generally did not advocate for or against freedom of expression. Rather, they spoke to the justified consequences of certain types of expression under the notion that individuals and groups were free to express themselves how they so choose. According to Richard Hofstadter, “the most popular catchwords of Darwinism, ‘struggle for existence’ and ‘survival of the fittest,’ when applied to the life of man in society, suggested that nature would provide that the best competitors in a competitive situation would win, and that this process would lead to continuing improvement” (Hofstadter, 1944, 6). It was often used to justify imperialism, racism, eugenics, and poverty as well as argue for a laissez-faire economic model (History, 2018). Freedom of expression, though not at the forefront of Social Darwinism, was relevant to Social Darwinist thought as certain forms of expression were seen as evidence of a group’s superiority or inferiority.
William Graham Sumner, a prominent Social Darwinist thinker of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, wrote about the societal implications of social customs in his book, Folkways in 1907. While he did not explicitly write about freedom of expression, he detailed the effects of different types of social expression. In Chapter V, Societal Selection, he stated, “[w]e are familiar with the fact that when a fashion has been introduced and has become common our eye is formed to it, and no one looks "right" or stylish who does not conform to it,” (Sumner, 1907,186). With fashion, people are free to dress however they like, but those who do not dress as the norm (unable to properly adapt to the environment) will face societal consequences. In order to have good standing in society, one must tailor their expression to what society deems appropriate, reiterating a social “survival of the fittest” environment. Those deemed unfit are considered social outcasts, which could lead to a variety of possible consequences. While individuals have freedom of expression legally, the social norms and expectations of society govern people’s expression; adapt to the norm, or face the consequences. Sumner further wrote in relation to fashion that “[h]e who dissents is thought rustic and boorish. He is more or less severely boycotted, which means not only that he is made to suffer, but that he loses important advantages and hurts his interests” (Sumner, 1907, 192). The societal consequences of expressing oneself differently than the norm might coerce individuals to adapt and comply with the popular fashion. In addition to expression through one’s appearance, Sumner discussed oral expression, specifically when using slang and expletives: “There is a need for expression which will win attention and impress the memory. A strong expletive shocks an opponent, or it is an instinctive reaction on a situation which threatens the well-being of the speaker” (Sumner, 1907, 197). People had the ability to express themselves how they wished, so to Sumner, the consequences of their choices were justified; appropriate expression resulted in social success, and unfit expression resulted in social failure. In Folkways, Sumner briefly spoke about political expression in the form of symbolism: “The middle [class] is greatly affected by symbolism. ‘The flag’ can be developed into a fetich. A cult can be nourished around it. Group vanity is very strong in it. Patriotic emotions and faiths are its favorite psychological exercises, if the conjuncture is favorable and the material well-being is high. When the middle [class] is stirred by any spontaneous and consentaneous impulses which arise from its nature and ways, it may produce incredible results with only a minimum of organization” (Sumner, 1907, 58). Sumner argued that symbolic expression is powerful in uniting a group of people, especially around topics of class and national identity. However, he did not imply whether Social Darwinists such as himself find this to be positive or negative, just that groups can take great advantage of free political expression. In Social and natural Darwinism, organizations play a pivotal role. They serve as interactors, defined by Hodgson and Knudsen as “a relatively cohesive entity that… interacts with its environment in such a way as to lead to changes in the population of interactors and their replicators. Social organizations are obvious candidate interactors” that contribute to the survival and evolution of a population by creating routines, habits, and environments where individuals can communicate and teach one another (Hodgson, 2013). When applied to a sociopolitical context and freedom of expression, social organizations can utilize freedom of expression to serve similar purposes, spreading ideas, establishing social norms, and creating a shared identity as seen in Sumner’s statement on political symbolism. Herbert Spencer, another prominent Social Darwinist from the 19th century, spoke briefly but more specifically on his opinion of freedom in a famous quote regarding his “formula for justice” in The Principles of Ethics: “Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man" (Spencer, 1887). Spencer’s view on freedom of expression is more clear-cut than Sumner, providing that people should be able to express themselves freely, even though he did not name the right directly. In his article on Spencer’s moral philosophy, Weinstein detailed how “[e]qual freedom was the centrepiece of Spencer’s political philosophy. Moral rights lent this centrepiece substance and integrity” (Weinstein, 1990, 127). Additionally, Spencer “[h]aving argued that freedom of action is instrumentally indispensable to the pursuit of desires and happiness, Spencer then asserts that all individuals ought to have freedom of action. Since all are endowed with faculties, and are thus bound by God’s will to exercise them, all must have freedom to act” (Weinstein, 1990, 121). Freedom is essential to the pursuit of happiness in Spencer’s view, and though he cited freedom of action, that action may include expression so long as it does not infringe upon the freedom of others. References: History. 2018. “Social Darwinism.” History.com. https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/social-darwinism Hodgson, Geoffrey. 2013. “Understanding Organizational Evolution: Toward a Research Agenda using Generalized Darwinism.” Organizational Studies, 34 no. 7, 973-992. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613485855 Hofstadter, Richard. 1944. Social Darwinism in American Thought. Beacon Press. http://groupelavigne.free.fr/hofstadter1955.pdf Spencer, Herbert. 1887. The Principles of Ethics in “Herbert Spencer, Principles of Ethics (1887).” Online Library of Liberty, Liberty Fund, 1978. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/herbert-spencer-principles-of-ethics-1887 Sumner, William Graham. 1907. Folkways on “The Project Gutenberg eBook of Folkways,” Project Gutenberg, 2008. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/24253/pg24253-images.html Weinstein, D. 1990. “Equal Freedom, Rights and Utility in Spencer’s Moral Philosophy.” History of Political Thought, 11 no. 1. 119-142. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26213841 “William Graham Sumner.” n.d. Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed June 27, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Graham-Sumner |
| Voting Rights and Suffrage | Philosophical Origins | Social Darwinism held that human life in society was a fight for survival guided by the principle of "survival of the fittest", proposed by British philosopher and scientist Herbert Spencer. In his later publications, Spencer's devotion to the right of universal suffrage waned. While he views universal suffrage in Social Statics ( 1851) as a reliable way of keeping government from overstepping its bounds in safeguarding moral rights, he concludes in Principles of Ethics that universal suffrage fails to do so successfully, and therefore abandons his support for it. He subsequently came to the conclusion that universal suffrage posed more of a danger to moral rights than it did to defend them (Spencer on Voting, 1879) . Over-legislation was promoted by universal suffrage, especially when it was extended to women, as it allowed the government to take on tasks that were not its responsibility.
Spencer understood that liberalism's fundamental objective has never been to grant people the right to vote, but rather to limit government authority. In Social Statics ( 1981) , he states that “The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of Parliaments” (Spencer, 1981, p. 166). The primary motivation for expanding suffrage is to limit or prevent the government's role from expanding. When this aim is challenged, the law of equal freedom may be jeopardized less by suffrage restrictions than by their removal, according to Social Statics (Miller, 1982, p. 492). Spencer's work emphasizes the importance of changes in the pattern of interrelationships between the individual and the state in social evolution. The gradual decline of government's function in people's lives, according to Spencer, is the key to optimal social evolution in the future (Miller, 1982, p. 493). Before the publication of Social Statics in 1851, Spencer thought that universal suffrage would eliminate class legislation and protect the interests of the entire community. He even criticized the association of ignorance to the working class saying that “it is a great error to suppose that ignorance is peculiar to the unenfranchised.” (Spencer, 1851, p.232, para. 4). In 1860, Spencer emphasized once more that extending suffrage is only justifiable when it is utilized to preserve or extend individual liberty. However, he praised the suffrage expansion brought about by the Reform Bill of 1867, a good example of the triumph of feeling over intellect. Spencer's views on women's suffrage are similar to his views on allowing workers to vote. Spencer calls for unlimited political equality for women in Social Statics ( 1851) . He portrays women as being cognitively and physically inferior to men in this book, despite the fact that history shows that some women are equal to men in both regards. They have thrived as rulers, scientists, authors, and artists despite institutional constraints (Miller, 1982, p. 494). If many women are inferior, then many men are as well. In either case, the inferior should not be denied the chance to use the faculties they have. However, Spencer had concluded by 1892 that women could not be trusted with unfettered franchise. His rationale was that women are less capable of abstract thinking than males and are more influenced by emotional appeals. Spencer does not give explicit reasoning as to why this is the case. He simply notes in Social Statics ( 1851) that “[a woman’s] faculties are less powerful [..] because woman is mentally inferior to man she has less extensive rights, amount to ? Just this,--that because woman has weaker faculties than man, she ought not to have like liberty with him to exercise the faculties she has!” (Spencer, 1851, p.158). In addition, “A further difference between men and women is due to the fact that men are liable to military service for the defense of the country in time of war. Since this burden does not fall upon women, they are not entitled to the franchise, until a state of permanent peace has been attained” (Elliot, 2019, p. 205). References: Elliot, H., Williams, B. ( 2019) . Makers of the Nineteenth Century Herbert Spencer. United States: Creative Media Partners, LLC. Miller, W. ( 1982) . HERBERT SPENCER'S DRIFT TO CONSERVATISM. History of Political Thought, 3(3), 483-497. Retrieved July 25, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2621 2267 Spencer on voting as a poor instrument for protecting our rights to life, liberty, and property ( 1879) . Online Library of Liberty. (n.d.). https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/spencer-on-voting-as-a-poor-instrument-for-protecting-our-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property- 1879. Spencer, H. ( 1851) . Social Statics . Online Library of Liberty. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/spencer-social-statics- 1851 Spencer, H. ( 1981) . The Man versus the State, with Six Essays on Government, Society and Freedom (LF ed.). Online Library of Liberty. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/mack-the-man-versus-the-state-with-six-essays-on-government-society-and-freedom-lf-ed#Spencer_0020_330 |