Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism in the political sphere is defined as:


A term not widely used in Europe and America until after 1880 and then almost invariably employed as a pejorative tag, to mean the belief, based on a (?mis-)reading of Darwin, that natural selection entails the elimination of weak societies, or people, by strong ones. Popular in the innocent 1890s, social Darwinism seemed wholly discredited after Nazism. Some have seen its recurrence in sociobiology, which has therefore been controversial; but the ‘new social Darwinism’, if that is what it is, is based on the new genetics, which shows that Darwinism entails none of the racist or eugenicist inferences that were widely made between the 1890s and the 1930s (that one part of the human race is genetically superior to another, or that it is feasible and desirable to breed exceptionally good offspring from exceptionally good parents).

Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to ‘survival of the fittest’ entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A ‘social Darwinist’ could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist. Many of the foremost thinkers conventionally labelled ‘social Darwinist’ established their arguments independently of the findings and methods of Darwinian biology. This is the case, for instance, with Spencer and W. G. Sumner, the former being an unrepentant Lamarckist and dedicated believer in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, the latter an enthusiastic disciple of Malthus. With all of this in mind, it may very well be that the term ‘social Darwinism’ has merely a narrow rhetorical and ideological usage and consequently is of only passing historiographical interest.

Conservative Republicans and fundamentalists in every religion tend to look at spiritual things from a social Darwinist perspective. Darwinism says that the race progresses by eliminating the weakest members of society. In America, we have gone to extreme to prolong life, to keep alive those who cannot survive on their own, and to encourage those who pass on recessive and destructive genes. These ideals are supported by liberal and moderate politicians and voters because they value each individual life. They see a responsibility to allow each person to develop to their own potential.

The Scripture makes clear its position. It supports the intervention of G-d and the Holy Spirit to heal and to perform miracles. Miracles ignore Darwinism and support the ideal that every individuals interaction with the world will bring something of importance lost if that individual is gone. Healing is a vital method of frustrating Darwinism. There is no question that many of the diseases that use to kill are now controlled and, theoretically, those least able to survive are allowed to live. Paul goes so far as to say that if we give even our organs, our bodies, to the support of others with love we have done a good act. Organ transplanting is the absolute antithesis of Social Darwinism.

Underlying Conservative and Tea Party philosophies of triumphalism. We have made it, say the Tea Partiers, and we want to keep what we made. As a group they would allow the poor to die, would help only those within their church, and would condemn the oppressed to slavery. President Johnson said that America, the richest country on earth could spend enough to eliminate poverty. Yes they could, but they did not and now poverty ranks higher than ever before numerically. Over 45 million people are poor in America; that number is greater than most nations and Khruschev said what good is our democracy if people are dying and starving in America. What would Jesus do? What would Moses do?

The issue is best put before us when Cain asks G-d, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Genesis 4:9. The answer for G-d was yes. We are our brother's keeper and we owe it to him to help without destruction of his dignity. Social Darwinism is the religion of Cain. It ignores the duty to care.

This is not a political statement. I am a libertarian, not a conservative, but I do not like what is going on in America either. However, the solution is not to turn our backs on the poor, but to stop our adventurism in foreign countries.