![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Has anyone considered that if social darwinism were true, that all the poor should be dying off, eventually leaving a race of rich people? Instead, poor are the most numerous and tend to have more children than the rich. If Darwinism were really applied to our society in this way, one would have to conclude that the poor were the really successful ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEvilPanda ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You might have a point if "Social Darwinism" was actually Darwinism as explained in The Origin of Species. It is not. It is the contention by various interest groups that certain classes of people -- usually including themselves -- are "better" than others in some Neo-evolutionary sense that has nothing to do with biological evolution and deserve to rule the world. They may be simply followers of some philosophy or religion. Furthermore, it is unpredictable which if any human groups will survive when global population implodes, and only afterward will it be known which genotypes or phenotypes were fittest in the Darwinian sense. Fairandbalanced ( talk) 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
What I'm getting from this article is that as the result of our society and social structure, people with undesirable and debilitating genetic conditions survive and breed to pass of these conditions to their offspring. I believe that, in the wild, such people would be highly unlikely to survive such a kill-or-be-killed world. I'm also getting that this effect is progressive and degenerative. Am I getting the wrong impression, or is this destined to become a serious problem? 66.41.44.102 ( talk) 11:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The whole idea of social darwinism and eugenics is b.s. The biological distance between humans and other animals is so large that the rules that apply to domestic animals and breeding do not apply to humans at all. Anybody who have worked on animal models and tried to apply the findings in animal models to humans know that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 February 2009
What I meant by progressive and degenerative is that, as the undesirable and debilitating genetic conditions are passed on, there is nothing to hold it back, and that eventually all of humanity will have the conditions. For a example, some people are more likely to develop heart disease than others, in the wild, the ones that developed heart disease would be less likely live long enough to breed, as such only the ones that were resistent to it would live to breed, eliminating heart disease. This is the driving force of evolution, but because of our culture, few die of natural or environmental causes before they breed, as such there is no evolution and diseases run rampant. 66.41.44.102 ( talk) 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
When I found this article under 'fascism', I was expecting an article with lots of original research and little digs against the wretched evolutionists - and thats exactly what I got. Instead of it as an example of western power and economic strategy in the late 19th century, I got what I knew I'd get: character assassination and lots of original research.
Under the 'Criticisms and controversies' section, the article gives up becoming coherent altogether, starting with a beautiful line 'Social Darwinism has many definitions, ... some of the definitions oppose the others' and then begins the pro-creationist propaganda of tying together Darwin, Evolutionists, and Evolution theory, with Hitler and the Nazis. I don't see why Wikipedia should tolerate this garbage - dump the article, and do it again. User:Wrongspots —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC).
From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany by Richard Weikart makes a balanced, well-researched and fair argument showing the strong connection. It's not propaganda or garbage it's history. Erasing that aspect of history is revisionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.121.90 ( talk) 00:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
From my own personal study, I believe there should be a very strict line drawn between Social Darwinism and eugenics. The fourth paragraph in the introduction does not make a good distinction. If no one opposes in the next few days I will take it out completely. Also the section of theories and origins are not correct. Social Darwinism was created on the bases of laissez-faire, that is the people will be left to themselves. Eugenics requires government intervention to speed the process of natural selection. Social Darwinism has it's roots strictly in economic theory, while eugenics is mainly a social and political ideology. You will have to forgive me because I do not know my history well enough to state which came first, or if they both emerged approximately the same time, but I do believe that it would be a major historical error to state that they have the same roots. Please, let me know what you think. InfoNation101 | talk | 05:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an accurate assessment. It is instructive to think of three concepts as occupying the vertices of a triangle.
Eugenics is based on the notion that some central agent (for example, the government) can engineer a breeding program resulting in some superior genetic profile for the population, supposedly better suited to the environmental conditions. Eugenics need not be expressly political, but one can draw parallels between it and national socialism and other forms of totalitarianism.
Dysgenics says much the same thing - except, instead of selective breeding, the idea is to eliminate, as much as possible, all forces of selection (via the action of some central agent - generally the government). The net result will be "equality", which, according to proponents, is an end unto itself, but dysgenics supposedly also opens up new possibilities for human advancement which are supposedly not possible under the operation of single-generational selection. Dysgenics need not be expressly political, but one can draw parallels between it and democratic socialism, and some other Marxism-influenced political identities.
Social Darwinism is a system where all such central planning is detested - it is indeed a laissez-faire concept, sink or swim. Social Darwinism need not be expressly political, but one can draw parallels between it and capitalism (procreation should follow the same model as the free-market, which in turn can be modeled following from evolutionary principles, like natural selection coupled with innovation/modification). 19:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Much of the Wikipedia is vastly improved since I last visited, but this article is rotten. It completely fails to distinguish clearly between biological evolution, socio-economic philosophies of "Social Darwinism", and eugenics. I don't recall Darwin himself making a clear distinction between breeding (which he used extensively for supporting evidence) and evolutionary "fitness," but the distinction is clear to modern evolutionary biologists. Unfortunately I'm not one of those. Fairandbalanced ( talk) 01:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In the "critique and controversy" section I expected a critique of "social darwinism", but it seems it is rather a critique of the critiques of "social darwinism". The fact that some people wrongfully equate biological Darwinism with political Social Darwinism does not justify the attempt to rewrite history. In fact Darwin was abused by the Nazis and other Racialists and Eugenics. It seems to be a somewhat twisted construction to put the blame on ideas, which originated before Darwin.-- 80.228.184.147 ( talk) 14:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Is Social Darwinism related to functionalism in sociology? Indeed, the "niche" system described by functionalism is akin to the more modern and developed theory of evolution. It seems to me that functionalism represents bio diversity (which translates to social and genetic diversity). Does Social Darwinism just refer to the survival of the fittest and a eugenic approach, or does it have elements of interdependence of weak and strong figures in society (i.e. one can't exist without the other)?
I won't make any edits, I just thought that it could be suggested that the two are somewhat related or similar.
I took sociology last year and found this stuff really fascinating, however, I'm not an expert on Herbert Spencer or Thomas Malthus or the origin of the theory... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.20.17 ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 7 October 2008
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Herbert Spencer is typically, though quite wrongly, considered a coarse social Darwinist." Spencer is used quite prominently in this article. If he isn't really a Social Darwinist, a revision is in order. -- Jayson Virissimo ( talk) 09:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Quote: The great majority of American businessmen rejected the anti-philanthropic implications of the theory. Instead they gave millions to build schools, colleges, hospitals, art institutes, parks and many other institutions. Andrew Carnegie, who admired Spencer, was the leading philanthropist in the world (1890-1920), and a major leader against imperialism and warfare.
These sentences don't quite seem right to me, I'm going to have to check the exact policy, but they don't seem appropriate. Maybe they need citations, maybe they're just NPOV (trying to sugarcoat the implications of the American embrace of social darwinism), I'm not sure, but I think they need to be removed. Any thoughts or opinions? I'm kind of new to editing, but I think I may give it a go. 59.38.32.5 ( talk) 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is this article linked with the racism category? This seems normatively loaded, and unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.97.146 ( talk) 23:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Darwin was very racist in the Decent of Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.121.90 ( talk) 00:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please tell the pagenumber of ref. 16 (the Arendt ref)? ABC101090 ( talk) 23:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
<reduce indent> From the limited preview I've been able to obtain, Arendt mentions Darwinism on page 171 as not having influenced the earlier idea of a law which would explain the death of nations as demonstrated by Gobineau, page 178 as being strengthened by following the path of the old might-right doctrine, and on page 179 says that finally the last disciples of Darwinism in Germany decided to leave the field of scientific research altogether, forget about the missing link between man and ape, and started instead their practical efforts to change man into what the Darwinists thought... So, she doesn't appear to use the term social Darwinism, and instead refers to the application of Darwinism (in its German sense, which had to do with Naturphilosophie and Lamarckism as much as with natural selection or Darwin's other ideas) to pre-existing social ideas. It's also inaccurate to call German Darwinism politically indifferent, as Haeckel was using it in his opposition to clericalism from the outset. So, "For example, the Jewish philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development from a politically indifferent scientific Darwinism via social Darwinist ethics to racist ideology." seems a bit inaccurate. Suggest "For example, the Jewish philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development in which Darwinism was increasingly turned away from scientific research to supporting existing social ethics and racist ideology." . . dave souza, talk 08:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I put in the lede:
Social Darwinism" was a pejorative term in Hofstadter's book, and remains so. There were never any people or groups who referred to themselves as "Social Darwinists." Furthermore, Herbert Spencer, who many claim invented or popularized the "ideology," explicitly disagreed with most of its alleged tenets such as eugenics and letting the poor suffer. [1] Quite the contrary, Spencer's ethic emphasized "positive beneficence," arguing that voluntary help for the poor was more advanced and evolved. The notion of "social Darwinism" could be considered a strawman created by those who want to impose state intervention onto voluntary society. [2]
This is basically an elaboration of the last phrase in the first paragraph, which said Social Darwinism "has generally been used by critics rather than advocates of what the term is supposed to represent." I think that is way too vague. It is important to know that there were no historical Social Darwinists. PhilLiberty ( talk) 19:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
As it stands, it's a mess. Almost every positive statement is qualified to death. To me it looks like an article that has been repeatedly vandalized and then "fixed". I would suggest starting over, and with Hofstadter (sp?), explaining that he applied the term to a group of theories and ideas originating in the popularization of Darwin's ideas in the late nineteenth century. This accomplishes two things. It identifies the origin of the term, first, in academic discourse (like the term "courtly love," for example, which was invented in the mid-nineteenth century), and second, in the thing itself, that is, the popularizations of Darwin that were widespread during the late nineteenth century. A good place to start would be Greta Jones, Social Dawinism and English Thought: The Interaction Between Biological and Social Theory.
Theonemacduff ( talk) 15:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to be rewritten. It does some damaging things in confounding the meanings of natural selection and survival of the fittest, as well as misunderstanding the meaning of natural selection as a whole. Natural selection is not about competition for limited resources among species. Its rather about random genetic mutation that makes a given species more capable of taking advantage of the available resources purely as a product of those mutations. It's not a matter of competition its stated here. The whole notion of evolution and Darwinism was then distorted on various fronts into the social theories that are talked about here in order to justify unethical practices and treatment of others. Eugenics being only one grave distortion. This article needs to be deleted and started over with some good information that takes into account not only the basic tenets of the theory itself but how it was them used horribly to marginalize certain groups. So, the basics need to be elaborated upon so that a more accurate and full picture can be developed. As it stands its inaccurate and creates some unfortunate room for misunderstanding. Social Darwinism is a somewhat difficult concept to wrestle with and a dangerous one if its taken and interpreted broadly and poorly.
VWdrivin ( talk) 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. Sorry this is more a question than a comment, but I guess you'll see my point.
You know that Newton invented a Law stating that in space little things are attracted by big bodies and if the little cannot escape that attraction or manage to become a satellite (subjetion) of the big, the little crashes on the big and is destroyed and absorbed. I find this theory looks close to modern economics, in particular to mergers and acquisitions of companies, if not to Chicago School as a whole.
So I am wondering if there is some sort of "Social Newtonism" theory?
(which would sounds quite close to "Social Darwinisn", wouldn't it?)
Thanks in advance for your replies, cheers. --
Silwilhith (
talk)
00:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Though some changes had confused the opening a little, the lead was essentially well referenced, reflecting current scholarship. This edit substituted a less accurate and more rigid definition in the form of a quotation, sourced only to "Abercrombie|Hill|Turner|2000" pp. 321, 322. That's only one definition, and omits the context and usage of the phrase. It may be possible to incorporate it in addition to the fuller accounts, what exactly was the source? In the interim I've restored an earlier version of the lead. . . dave souza, talk 11:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Note that the edit in question was added as a supplement, rather than a substitute. The edit content is reliable and recent and serves to introduce some NPOV balance to the existing paragraph which defines social darwinism as a "perjorative term used to attack ideologies...". Note that I did not remove said POV paragraph though I don't agree that it stands up well to scrutiny, as a definition it is weak and one-sided. Further efforts are invited to arrive at an appropriately-sourced and balanced definition of the term. In the interim, I have restored both sourced items, and will update with further sourced content shortly. X-factor ( talk) 15:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Numerous scholars have made the point that the term is a pejorative epithet, used by the enemies of the movement to discredit it. Eric Foner says "In fact, Bannister concluded, social Darwinism existed mainly as an "epithet," a label devised by advocates of a reforming state to stigmatize laissez-faire conservatism." Foner introduction to Social Darwinism in American thought by Richard Hofstadter p xix. Professor David M. Buss, in The handbook of evolutionary psychology (2005) p. 169 says: "To ask how the epithet social Darwinism functioned, on the other hand, is to turn the conventional account rather literally on its head. Not only was there no school (or schools) of social Darwinists: the term was a label one pinned upon anyone with whom one especially disagreed." Rjensen ( talk) 20:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Has anyone considered that if social darwinism were true, that all the poor should be dying off, eventually leaving a race of rich people? Instead, poor are the most numerous and tend to have more children than the rich. If Darwinism were really applied to our society in this way, one would have to conclude that the poor were the really successful ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEvilPanda ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You might have a point if "Social Darwinism" was actually Darwinism as explained in The Origin of Species. It is not. It is the contention by various interest groups that certain classes of people -- usually including themselves -- are "better" than others in some Neo-evolutionary sense that has nothing to do with biological evolution and deserve to rule the world. They may be simply followers of some philosophy or religion. Furthermore, it is unpredictable which if any human groups will survive when global population implodes, and only afterward will it be known which genotypes or phenotypes were fittest in the Darwinian sense. Fairandbalanced ( talk) 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
What I'm getting from this article is that as the result of our society and social structure, people with undesirable and debilitating genetic conditions survive and breed to pass of these conditions to their offspring. I believe that, in the wild, such people would be highly unlikely to survive such a kill-or-be-killed world. I'm also getting that this effect is progressive and degenerative. Am I getting the wrong impression, or is this destined to become a serious problem? 66.41.44.102 ( talk) 11:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The whole idea of social darwinism and eugenics is b.s. The biological distance between humans and other animals is so large that the rules that apply to domestic animals and breeding do not apply to humans at all. Anybody who have worked on animal models and tried to apply the findings in animal models to humans know that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 February 2009
What I meant by progressive and degenerative is that, as the undesirable and debilitating genetic conditions are passed on, there is nothing to hold it back, and that eventually all of humanity will have the conditions. For a example, some people are more likely to develop heart disease than others, in the wild, the ones that developed heart disease would be less likely live long enough to breed, as such only the ones that were resistent to it would live to breed, eliminating heart disease. This is the driving force of evolution, but because of our culture, few die of natural or environmental causes before they breed, as such there is no evolution and diseases run rampant. 66.41.44.102 ( talk) 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
When I found this article under 'fascism', I was expecting an article with lots of original research and little digs against the wretched evolutionists - and thats exactly what I got. Instead of it as an example of western power and economic strategy in the late 19th century, I got what I knew I'd get: character assassination and lots of original research.
Under the 'Criticisms and controversies' section, the article gives up becoming coherent altogether, starting with a beautiful line 'Social Darwinism has many definitions, ... some of the definitions oppose the others' and then begins the pro-creationist propaganda of tying together Darwin, Evolutionists, and Evolution theory, with Hitler and the Nazis. I don't see why Wikipedia should tolerate this garbage - dump the article, and do it again. User:Wrongspots —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC).
From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany by Richard Weikart makes a balanced, well-researched and fair argument showing the strong connection. It's not propaganda or garbage it's history. Erasing that aspect of history is revisionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.121.90 ( talk) 00:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
From my own personal study, I believe there should be a very strict line drawn between Social Darwinism and eugenics. The fourth paragraph in the introduction does not make a good distinction. If no one opposes in the next few days I will take it out completely. Also the section of theories and origins are not correct. Social Darwinism was created on the bases of laissez-faire, that is the people will be left to themselves. Eugenics requires government intervention to speed the process of natural selection. Social Darwinism has it's roots strictly in economic theory, while eugenics is mainly a social and political ideology. You will have to forgive me because I do not know my history well enough to state which came first, or if they both emerged approximately the same time, but I do believe that it would be a major historical error to state that they have the same roots. Please, let me know what you think. InfoNation101 | talk | 05:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an accurate assessment. It is instructive to think of three concepts as occupying the vertices of a triangle.
Eugenics is based on the notion that some central agent (for example, the government) can engineer a breeding program resulting in some superior genetic profile for the population, supposedly better suited to the environmental conditions. Eugenics need not be expressly political, but one can draw parallels between it and national socialism and other forms of totalitarianism.
Dysgenics says much the same thing - except, instead of selective breeding, the idea is to eliminate, as much as possible, all forces of selection (via the action of some central agent - generally the government). The net result will be "equality", which, according to proponents, is an end unto itself, but dysgenics supposedly also opens up new possibilities for human advancement which are supposedly not possible under the operation of single-generational selection. Dysgenics need not be expressly political, but one can draw parallels between it and democratic socialism, and some other Marxism-influenced political identities.
Social Darwinism is a system where all such central planning is detested - it is indeed a laissez-faire concept, sink or swim. Social Darwinism need not be expressly political, but one can draw parallels between it and capitalism (procreation should follow the same model as the free-market, which in turn can be modeled following from evolutionary principles, like natural selection coupled with innovation/modification). 19:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Much of the Wikipedia is vastly improved since I last visited, but this article is rotten. It completely fails to distinguish clearly between biological evolution, socio-economic philosophies of "Social Darwinism", and eugenics. I don't recall Darwin himself making a clear distinction between breeding (which he used extensively for supporting evidence) and evolutionary "fitness," but the distinction is clear to modern evolutionary biologists. Unfortunately I'm not one of those. Fairandbalanced ( talk) 01:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In the "critique and controversy" section I expected a critique of "social darwinism", but it seems it is rather a critique of the critiques of "social darwinism". The fact that some people wrongfully equate biological Darwinism with political Social Darwinism does not justify the attempt to rewrite history. In fact Darwin was abused by the Nazis and other Racialists and Eugenics. It seems to be a somewhat twisted construction to put the blame on ideas, which originated before Darwin.-- 80.228.184.147 ( talk) 14:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Is Social Darwinism related to functionalism in sociology? Indeed, the "niche" system described by functionalism is akin to the more modern and developed theory of evolution. It seems to me that functionalism represents bio diversity (which translates to social and genetic diversity). Does Social Darwinism just refer to the survival of the fittest and a eugenic approach, or does it have elements of interdependence of weak and strong figures in society (i.e. one can't exist without the other)?
I won't make any edits, I just thought that it could be suggested that the two are somewhat related or similar.
I took sociology last year and found this stuff really fascinating, however, I'm not an expert on Herbert Spencer or Thomas Malthus or the origin of the theory... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.20.17 ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 7 October 2008
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Herbert Spencer is typically, though quite wrongly, considered a coarse social Darwinist." Spencer is used quite prominently in this article. If he isn't really a Social Darwinist, a revision is in order. -- Jayson Virissimo ( talk) 09:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Quote: The great majority of American businessmen rejected the anti-philanthropic implications of the theory. Instead they gave millions to build schools, colleges, hospitals, art institutes, parks and many other institutions. Andrew Carnegie, who admired Spencer, was the leading philanthropist in the world (1890-1920), and a major leader against imperialism and warfare.
These sentences don't quite seem right to me, I'm going to have to check the exact policy, but they don't seem appropriate. Maybe they need citations, maybe they're just NPOV (trying to sugarcoat the implications of the American embrace of social darwinism), I'm not sure, but I think they need to be removed. Any thoughts or opinions? I'm kind of new to editing, but I think I may give it a go. 59.38.32.5 ( talk) 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is this article linked with the racism category? This seems normatively loaded, and unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.97.146 ( talk) 23:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Darwin was very racist in the Decent of Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.121.90 ( talk) 00:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please tell the pagenumber of ref. 16 (the Arendt ref)? ABC101090 ( talk) 23:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
<reduce indent> From the limited preview I've been able to obtain, Arendt mentions Darwinism on page 171 as not having influenced the earlier idea of a law which would explain the death of nations as demonstrated by Gobineau, page 178 as being strengthened by following the path of the old might-right doctrine, and on page 179 says that finally the last disciples of Darwinism in Germany decided to leave the field of scientific research altogether, forget about the missing link between man and ape, and started instead their practical efforts to change man into what the Darwinists thought... So, she doesn't appear to use the term social Darwinism, and instead refers to the application of Darwinism (in its German sense, which had to do with Naturphilosophie and Lamarckism as much as with natural selection or Darwin's other ideas) to pre-existing social ideas. It's also inaccurate to call German Darwinism politically indifferent, as Haeckel was using it in his opposition to clericalism from the outset. So, "For example, the Jewish philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development from a politically indifferent scientific Darwinism via social Darwinist ethics to racist ideology." seems a bit inaccurate. Suggest "For example, the Jewish philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development in which Darwinism was increasingly turned away from scientific research to supporting existing social ethics and racist ideology." . . dave souza, talk 08:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I put in the lede:
Social Darwinism" was a pejorative term in Hofstadter's book, and remains so. There were never any people or groups who referred to themselves as "Social Darwinists." Furthermore, Herbert Spencer, who many claim invented or popularized the "ideology," explicitly disagreed with most of its alleged tenets such as eugenics and letting the poor suffer. [1] Quite the contrary, Spencer's ethic emphasized "positive beneficence," arguing that voluntary help for the poor was more advanced and evolved. The notion of "social Darwinism" could be considered a strawman created by those who want to impose state intervention onto voluntary society. [2]
This is basically an elaboration of the last phrase in the first paragraph, which said Social Darwinism "has generally been used by critics rather than advocates of what the term is supposed to represent." I think that is way too vague. It is important to know that there were no historical Social Darwinists. PhilLiberty ( talk) 19:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
As it stands, it's a mess. Almost every positive statement is qualified to death. To me it looks like an article that has been repeatedly vandalized and then "fixed". I would suggest starting over, and with Hofstadter (sp?), explaining that he applied the term to a group of theories and ideas originating in the popularization of Darwin's ideas in the late nineteenth century. This accomplishes two things. It identifies the origin of the term, first, in academic discourse (like the term "courtly love," for example, which was invented in the mid-nineteenth century), and second, in the thing itself, that is, the popularizations of Darwin that were widespread during the late nineteenth century. A good place to start would be Greta Jones, Social Dawinism and English Thought: The Interaction Between Biological and Social Theory.
Theonemacduff ( talk) 15:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to be rewritten. It does some damaging things in confounding the meanings of natural selection and survival of the fittest, as well as misunderstanding the meaning of natural selection as a whole. Natural selection is not about competition for limited resources among species. Its rather about random genetic mutation that makes a given species more capable of taking advantage of the available resources purely as a product of those mutations. It's not a matter of competition its stated here. The whole notion of evolution and Darwinism was then distorted on various fronts into the social theories that are talked about here in order to justify unethical practices and treatment of others. Eugenics being only one grave distortion. This article needs to be deleted and started over with some good information that takes into account not only the basic tenets of the theory itself but how it was them used horribly to marginalize certain groups. So, the basics need to be elaborated upon so that a more accurate and full picture can be developed. As it stands its inaccurate and creates some unfortunate room for misunderstanding. Social Darwinism is a somewhat difficult concept to wrestle with and a dangerous one if its taken and interpreted broadly and poorly.
VWdrivin ( talk) 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. Sorry this is more a question than a comment, but I guess you'll see my point.
You know that Newton invented a Law stating that in space little things are attracted by big bodies and if the little cannot escape that attraction or manage to become a satellite (subjetion) of the big, the little crashes on the big and is destroyed and absorbed. I find this theory looks close to modern economics, in particular to mergers and acquisitions of companies, if not to Chicago School as a whole.
So I am wondering if there is some sort of "Social Newtonism" theory?
(which would sounds quite close to "Social Darwinisn", wouldn't it?)
Thanks in advance for your replies, cheers. --
Silwilhith (
talk)
00:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Though some changes had confused the opening a little, the lead was essentially well referenced, reflecting current scholarship. This edit substituted a less accurate and more rigid definition in the form of a quotation, sourced only to "Abercrombie|Hill|Turner|2000" pp. 321, 322. That's only one definition, and omits the context and usage of the phrase. It may be possible to incorporate it in addition to the fuller accounts, what exactly was the source? In the interim I've restored an earlier version of the lead. . . dave souza, talk 11:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Note that the edit in question was added as a supplement, rather than a substitute. The edit content is reliable and recent and serves to introduce some NPOV balance to the existing paragraph which defines social darwinism as a "perjorative term used to attack ideologies...". Note that I did not remove said POV paragraph though I don't agree that it stands up well to scrutiny, as a definition it is weak and one-sided. Further efforts are invited to arrive at an appropriately-sourced and balanced definition of the term. In the interim, I have restored both sourced items, and will update with further sourced content shortly. X-factor ( talk) 15:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Numerous scholars have made the point that the term is a pejorative epithet, used by the enemies of the movement to discredit it. Eric Foner says "In fact, Bannister concluded, social Darwinism existed mainly as an "epithet," a label devised by advocates of a reforming state to stigmatize laissez-faire conservatism." Foner introduction to Social Darwinism in American thought by Richard Hofstadter p xix. Professor David M. Buss, in The handbook of evolutionary psychology (2005) p. 169 says: "To ask how the epithet social Darwinism functioned, on the other hand, is to turn the conventional account rather literally on its head. Not only was there no school (or schools) of social Darwinists: the term was a label one pinned upon anyone with whom one especially disagreed." Rjensen ( talk) 20:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)