Social Darwinism in American Thought

If by chance you are unaware of what Social Dawinism is and/or do not know how it has flowed through America's bloodstream (most virtually since the Civil War) you are in for a reader's exploration that is destined to change your world view. For sure, you will realize how social Darwinism is alive and well today and, I offer, that you will be howling to leave it by the wayside by the time you've turned the last page of this unexpected history. This is a cornerstone read for the history buff and a must read for anyone seeking reasons why life--for most of us--is not as joyful or pleasant as it could be...In this light Richard Hofstdter's book is a teacher of both the mind and heart!

This book doesn't really take much of a position. Rather, it is a historical chronicle positions others have taken. But if there is a hidden 'thesis' to this book, my guess is that it would look something like this: Evolution is a unique science because it touches on the very idea of who humans are, individually and as a group. Becuase of this, there has been a great urge to make sweeping proclomations applying evolution to politics, ethics, economics, etc. This book is the historical record of various attempts. What one learns in this book is that far from being limited to Spencer and the laissez-faire crowd, evolution has been invoked to support just about every governmental and economic scheme imaginable: Kropotkin tied 'mutual aid' to anarchism; Marx applied it to communism; Spencer to capitalism; Dewey to government interventionism, etc....etc.... Hofstadter takes us on a ride that begins with Darwin and winds its way through these varied schemes. Everyone, it seems, wanted to apply this newly found science to their side before the other guy could monopolize it! If you couldn't link your beliefs to evolutionary support, then your beliefs may risk seeming unscientific (especially if the other guy COULD claim evolutionary support). And this is the story of that multifarious race. Obviously Spencer and Sumner are written about quite a bit, as they have become the public face of 'Social darwinim." (As it is a bastard philosophy, I refuse to capitalise the "d" in Social darwinism.) Kropotkin and those who tied evolution to altruism are also gone over a good deal. From there, we get a survey of the often neglected pragmatists and their understanding of Darwinism (I think they got it right; particuluarly William James.) We end in somewhat of an irony, with the anti-Spencerian economists who applied evolutionary thought to the OPPOSITE conclusion from Spencer's. It is a good read, especially for those interested in the history of ideas. But anyone looking for much of a thesis in this book will be disappointed. The book is not pro- or anti-evolution in any way whatever. The book only suggested (to me anway) the danger that comes when evolutionary thinkers unhinge themselves from the empirical and begin philosophizing about normative things like ethics and politics. Evolutionary psychology is one thing, but evolutionary ideology is quite another (in whatever shape it comes).

Typically, I bestow five stars on books I think profitable to read. This book is a classic: it is imperative to read. I disagree with the reviewer below (Mr. Landon) who calls for a repudiation of natural selection. I do not believe that sufficient evidence exists to recall the theory of natural selection. Richard Hofstaedter is not, I repeat, is not calling for that, either. Recalling a scientific theory because of political difficulties caused by misguided adherents is neither right nor necessary. And Richard Hofstaedter demonstrates why it is not necessary right here in this book.The take-away from this book is that social Darwinism, the belief that only the "fittest" (whatever that means) people among us should survive (rule, whatever), is on shaky ground. Always a morally repugnant doctrine, Hofstaedter shows social Darwinism to be logically suspect as well.As Hofstaedter points out, one can start with the social Darwinist's appropriation of (or more accurately with their failure to reckon with) the term "natural". Darwin's principle of natural selection never addressed individuals within a species, and its application to individuals is a tremendous mistake. Writing about individuals striving to be "fittest", Hofstaedter here, from the pen of Mr. Darwin himself:"People who are selfish and contentious will not cohere, and without coherence, nothing can be effected."Rugged individualism is repudiated by its supposed inventor, and is fatally wounded.One ponders the origin of the social instinct. Social Darwinists believe it to be contrived. But we were either created or selected to have it, this Darwin seems to know. And we should know it, too. Hofstaedter avoids bombast, ideology, and religion. Yet he most effectively shames any false philosopher who would trample underfoot the least of his brothers and pronounce it "inevitable", by demonstrating the fallacy of his "logic". By revealing the spurious origins and assumptions that form the foundation of the doctrine of social Darwinism, Hofstaedter undoes the false conflict between evolutionary science and Christian ethics.In the end, Mr. Landon and I agree: Five stars. If you're interested in the most significant question arising in the past couple of centuries for social science, ethics and religion, the buck stops here.

Hofstadter's classic work remains one of the outstanding challenges to the effect of Darwin's theory of evolution on social attitudes and beliefs. One of the great fallacies of evolutionary thinking can arise from the assumption of universal application of its mechanism of natural selection to all times, thus to the present and future. This is a fallacy and an inherent trap in confusing evolutionary process with a natural law, as in physics. The result of Darwin's theory was to make 'natural selection' a social strategy in the minds of many in a total confusion of theoretical domains of application. The outcome was the many variants of Social Darwinism that stretch into our own times. Hofstadter's documentation of the many shades of opinion generates a sense of deja vu, for few of the viewpoints we hear now are new and appear somewhere in the book, in a merry-go-round of confused thinking. It is a dreadful legacy that too many fell obligated to correct in the wrong fashion, by exempting Darwin entirely, and blaming those who came afterwards. In fact, the perception that Darwin's theory is simply wrong or incomplete is the only antidote to social Darwinist attitudes, which linger in the tacit belief of too many in the need to mimic the ruthlessness enjoined by a confused theory. Robert Bannister's Social Darwinism is also a partial comment on Hofstadter, but does not supercede this original and enduring work.

Richard Hofstadter is an excellent historian of the trends in American political, social, and religious thought. This book chronicles the rise and fall of Herbert Spencer's philosophy as a reinforcing doctrine for laissez-faire political economy. Hofstadter deftly combines his own observations with carefully selected quotes from the thinkers themselves. One lesson that may be gleaned from this work is that controversial and complex ideas such as Darwinian evolution may be used for a multiplicity of purposes, some of them conflicting. For those who seek a greater insight to the struggle between individualism and collectivism in American political culture. I would also recommend reading Will Durant's chapter on Herbert Spencer in The Story of Philosophy as a supplement.