• according to the philosophies of social darwinism, what happens to people who are not successful?

journal article

Darwin and Social Darwinism

Osiris

Vol. 9 (1950)

, pp. 397-412 (16 pages)

Published By: The University of Chicago Press

https://www.jstor.org/stable/301854

Read and download

Log in through your school or library

Alternate access options

For independent researchers

Read Online

Read 100 articles/month free

Subscribe to JPASS

Unlimited reading + 10 downloads

Purchase article

$14.00 - Download now and later

Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free.

Get Started

Already have an account? Log in

Monthly Plan

  • Access everything in the JPASS collection
  • Read the full-text of every article
  • Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep
$19.50/month

Yearly Plan

  • Access everything in the JPASS collection
  • Read the full-text of every article
  • Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep
$199/year

Purchase a PDF

Purchase this article for $14.00 USD.

How does it work?

  1. Select the purchase option.
  2. Check out using a credit card or bank account with PayPal.
  3. Read your article online and download the PDF from your email or your account.

Journal Information

Current issues are now on the Chicago Journals website. Read the latest issue.Founded in 1936 by George Sarton, and re-launched by the History of Science Society in 1985, this annual thematic journal highlights recent research on significant themes in the history of science. Recent volumes of Osiris include Expertise: Practical Knowledge and the Early Modern State, Klima, Clio Meets Science: The Challenges of History, and Music, Sound, and the Laboratory.

Publisher Information

Since its origins in 1890 as one of the three main divisions of the University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Press has embraced as its mission the obligation to disseminate scholarship of the highest standard and to publish serious works that promote education, foster public understanding, and enrich cultural life. Today, the Journals Division publishes more than 70 journals and hardcover serials, in a wide range of academic disciplines, including the social sciences, the humanities, education, the biological and medical sciences, and the physical sciences.

Rights & Usage

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Osiris © 1950 The University of Chicago Press
Request Permissions

Darwinism (and Social Darwinism)

H. Winlow, in International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2009

Social Darwinism: Definition

Social Darwinism is commonly understood to mean the application of Darwin's biological theories to the social and cultural realm. In reality, sociocultural evolutionary theories developed in parallel to biological theories, rather than emerging from them. Social Darwinism is an umbrella term which was applied indiscriminately to a variety of social theories that emerged in the late nineteenth century, with often little resemblance to Darwin's original theories. Since science itself cannot easily be separated from influences within society, there is no clear set of concepts which can be defined as Social Darwinism. There are grounds to question whether the label named any actual social movement, or whether it was an abstraction created by historians and read into the past. The term was not commonly used until the turn of the century and has negative associations. Over the course of the twentieth century, Social Darwinism has been equated with racism, Nazism, and the eugenics movement, perhaps explaining why more recent engagement with evolutionism has been conspicuous by its absence within human geography.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080449104006751

Darwinism and Social Darwinism

Heather Winlow, in International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edition), 2020

Social Darwinism: Definition

Social Darwinism is commonly understood to mean the application of Darwin's biological theories to the social and cultural realm. In reality, sociocultural evolutionary theories developed in parallel to biological theories, rather than emerging from them. Social Darwinism is an umbrella term which was applied indiscriminately to a variety of social theories that emerged in the late 19th Century, with often little resemblance to Darwin's original theories. Since science itself cannot easily be separated from influences within society, there is no clear set of concepts that can be defined as Social Darwinism. There are grounds to question whether the label named any actual social movement, or whether it was an abstraction created by historians and read into the past. The term was not commonly used until the turn of the century and has negative associations. Over the course of the 20th Century, Social Darwinism has been equated with racism, Nazism, and the eugenics movement, perhaps explaining why more recent engagement with evolutionism has not been widespread within human geography.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081022955102495

Eugenics, History of

D. Paul, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

See also:

Darwinism: Social; Ethical Issues in the ‘New’ Genetics; Eugenics as an International Movement; Eugenics as the Basis of Population Policy; Eugenics in Asia; Eugenics in Europe; Evolutionism, Including Social Darwinism; Galton, Sir Francis (1822–1911); Genetic Counseling: Historical, Ethical, and Practical Aspects; Genetic Engineering; Genetic Screening for Disease-related Characteristics; Genetic Testing and Counseling: Educational and Professional Aspects; National Socialism and Fascism; Nazi Law; ‘New’ Eugenics, The: Role in Society

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767000620

Counseling and Culture

Paul B. Pedersen, in Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, 2004

9 Conclusion

In 1999, Sue and colleagues summarized what needs to happen for psychology programs to facilitate positive multicultural initiatives so as to include (a) faculty and student preparation in the development of cultural competence; (b) a multicultural curriculum in all aspects of education and training; (c) minority representation among students, staff, faculty, and administration; (d) an inclusive and positive campus climate; (e) recognition of culturally biased teaching and learning styles; (f) people providing a social support network and services that understand the minority experience; and (g) recognition that current programs, policies, and practices negating multicultural development must be changed.

Multiculturalism is not just a trend or fad; rather, it is a permanent phenomenon of social functioning that reflects the advanced technology of a world where international boundaries have been replaced by close interactions among people around the globe. As the primary support systems of the village and family are diminished in authority around the world, more and more societies are looking for alternatives to provide the necessary social support in their communities. The field of counseling is a promising alternative for many of the world's cultures provided that counseling can be modified to fit with a variety of cultures and not merely impose Western or dominant culture values.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0126574103001902

Darwinism: Social

A. Drouard, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

The term ‘social Darwinism’ was coined in Europe in the 1880s and rapidly spread through England and the USA. It negatively refers to the theories and doctrines deriving the social laws from the laws of nature. The term was first used to criticize the Spencerian philosophy of the ‘struggle for life’ and the ‘survival of the fittest’ rather than Darwin's own theory of natural selection. Emile Gautier explains that the selection law does not apply to human societies. He describes this extrapolation as ‘social Darwinism’ and contrasts it with true social Darwinism which implies reforming society. This initial confusion still prevails in eugenics, a notion tinted with social Darwinism, though distinct from it. Two major types of social Darwinism emerge from its various forms: a liberal and individualistic type which stems from Spencer's evolutionary philosophy and makes the struggle between individuals the basic law of society; and a selectionist and interventionist type which can be defined as a sociology of struggle and which emphasizes the struggle between races. Nowadays social Darwinism is still part of the intellectual scene, as the rise of sociobiology shows.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B008043076701857X

Veblen, Thorstein (1857–1929)

Thomas Hall, Andreas Hess, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 2015

Critique of Neoclassical Economic Theory

Herbert Spencer's social Darwinism had a major impact on neoclassical economic theory in the Gilded Era. The collusion of a relatively small group of men shaped most decisions regarding governmental regulations on economic activities. As a result, it was not big business that carried the burden of taxation but farmers and other subaltern classes. This, in turn, paved the way for the creation of monopolies that limited competition and distribution of goods and services. Neoclassical economics did not support institutional or governmental interference with market economies because intervention was believed to inhibit market exchanges. According to the theory, it is the individual actor who determines the degree to which wealth is obtained. Those who become wealthy do so by hard work and frugality, while those who are poor are unmotivated or unwilling to work and save.

Veblen was critical of neoclassical economics theory. Veblen viewed economics as an evolutionary science. He offered an alternative hypothesis based on social evolution, accelerated by the spirit of workmanship, and led by peaceable men. His schema of evolutionary economic growth was influenced by the belief that instincts are not conscious, but are conditioned by and activated through habits. In line with pragmatist reasoning Veblen argued that the nexus of change lies between the individual and macro-social institutions: “every change so made is necessarily made by individuals immersed in the community and exposed to the discipline of group life as it runs in the community, since all life is necessarily group life” (Veblen, 2007: 103f). Accordingly, “social wealth is the stock of human norms, mores and structures of truthfulness” (Veblen, 2007: 173).

Time and again, Veblen critically referred to emulation and predation as a means of creating a real or imagined status based on an outward demonstration of wealth and strength. In contrast to emulation and predation, the instinct of workmanship is an innate drive that seeks to increase productivity and efficiency both for the individual and for the betterment of the community. For example, Veblen used the phrase ‘parental bent’ to explain altruism, or the tendency to extend one's self to provide for future generations. He also used the term ‘idle curiosity’ to describe creativity or taking time to think about innovation, as opposed to accepting well-worn ‘solutions.’ In his day, the colloquialism ‘idle hands are the work of the devil’ was juxtaposed to his description of ‘idle curiosity.’

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080970868613090

Darwinism

Michael. Ruse, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 2015

Social Darwinism

Finally, what about social Darwinism? Few want to use that label given its unfortunate connotations with such things as the ruthless business practices of the twentieth century. But still there is a thriving industry among those who want to derive more from evolutionism than mere science (Ruse, 1999, 2009). Julian Huxley (1927) was one person in the twentieth century who wanted his evolution to be the basis of a ‘religion without revelation,’ and more recently Edward O. Wilson (1998) is another. In one of his prize-winning books, On Human Nature (1978), Wilson is explicit in seeing evolution as more than mere science, as a ‘myth,’ which will absorb or push aside conventional religion:

Make no mistake about the power of scientific materialism. It presents the human mind with an alternative mythology that until now has always, point for point in zones of conflict, defeated traditional religion. Its narrative form is the epic: the evolution of the universe from the big bang of 15 billion years ago through the origin of the elements and celestial bodies to the beginnings of life on earth.

And so on and so forth up to humans. Little wonder that ‘Theology is not likely to survive as an independent intellectual discipline.’

Wilson even finds a place for an evolution-based morality – not the laissez-faire of yesterday but a call to biodiversity and species preservation, lest we humans decline and fall in a world impoverished of living nature.

It is certainly not necessary for a scientific Darwinian to be a social or philosophical Darwinian, but a remarkably large number are. The important conclusion is that, however defined, Darwinism has a rich tradition, and although it has never been without its critics, it continues in the twenty-first century as an important and ever developing testament to human reason and creativity.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978008097086881003X

Darwinism: Social

Alain Drouard, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 2015

Abstract

In the most general sense, social Darwinism refers to the transposition of Darwinian theories from nature to society. The expression appeared in Europe in the 1880s and later in Anglo-Saxon countries, and was first used by the opponents of these ideas, and particularly by critics of the philosophy of Herbert Spencer.

It is difficult to define social Darwinism. From a theoretical point of view, it is a postulate of an analogy between the laws of nature and the laws of society makes it likely to be confused with evolutionism. On the contrary, if one focuses on the practices and the policies, which it advocates, it is tempting to equate it with eugenics, whereas many eugenicists were not social Darwinists.

Social Darwinism has assumed different forms in different times and in different countries. Between 1850 and 1880, liberal social Darwinism held that ‘the struggle for life’ between individuals of the same species and ‘the survival of the fittest’ were the fundamental laws of society.

At the end of the nineteenth century appeared what could be called ‘selectionist social Darwinism.’ The struggle between nations and races replaces henceforth the struggle between individuals as the driving force of history. States need to intervene to counteract the deleterious effects of civilization.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080970868320360

Cultural Dimensions

Philip Smith, Brad West, in Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict (Third Edition), 2008

Ritual, Symbolic Action, and Building Peace

Ethological studies belong to an intellectual field which borders on the morally dubious territories of Social Darwinism and Eugenics. In the wrong hands, such as those of Adolf Hitler, such theories can be used to question the belief that peace is either possible or good. On the contrary, they can be taken to lead to the conclusion that conflict is not only inevitable but also an ennobling duty. Through military triumph over the weak and through programs of “ethnic cleansing,” the strong can claim their birthright and purify and refine their bloodstock, thus, fulfilling some kind of “racial destiny.”

Fortunately, it is possible to derive a more constructive lesson from the ethological literature once it is realized that there is no inevitable connection between scientific knowledge derived from observations of animal behavior and a pseudo-Darwinistic moral philosophy. Humans are different from animals, and one of the most important differences is their ability to construct moral codes and institutional arrangements which modify or transcend the effects of nature. An important argument along these lines is William James' essay on “The Moral Equivalent of War.” James recognizes the existence of martial traits in modern people that have arisen as a result of thousands of years of war but suggests that these can be channeled into nonviolent avenues such as public service. In this way, he argues, society could retain the constructive “character building” qualities of military service but avoid bloodshed. In a similar vein, the biologist Richard Dawkins has denied that his analysis of the “selfish gene” is a justification for selfish, free-market individualism as some of his critics have suggested. Rather, he contends scientific knowledge allows us to be aware of the operation of genetic conditioning and, consequently, to be able to sit down and discuss rational strategies for thwarting genes and nurturing genuine altruism. In this way, we can “rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.”

Knowledge about ethology allows for reflexivity and an awareness of the negative traits of our species—the instinctual and selfish behaviors which are to be avoided. We can also look to the ethological corpus for more positive suggestions for constructing peace. Two potential themes stand out. The first of these is that the literature can be used as a resource for strategy analysts who are attracted to rational choice and game theory. It might be possible to locate in the animal kingdom and the adaptive behaviors of its members exemplars for constructing distributions of resources, threats, and balances of power that encourage ritualistic rather than escalated fighting. The attraction (and also weakness) of these kinds of solutions is that they do not require changing people's minds. Rather, they permit peaceful coexistence to be built into situations where human competition remains every bit as fierce as it is between genomes. An example of such a situation was the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, which underpinned the nuclear deterrence strategies of the United States and the Soviet Union in the post-World War II period. The idea here was that the costs of full-scale nuclear war, such as global destruction and nuclear winter, would be too high for either side. Consequently, expressions of their mutual hostility were limited to regional wars (e.g., Nicaragua, Vietnam) and symbolic and diplomatic skirmishing. This is perhaps analogous to the deescalated violence we find in animal combats, where threat of death or serious injury prevents even dominant contestants from using full force.

A second possibility afforded by animal studies is that they can be creatively misread to serve as a kind of moral exemplar. While animal behaviors might be selfish from the perspective of science, they can often appear to be altruistic or moral to common sense. The shift toward postmodernity is seeing nature resacralized in contemporary popular culture as a zone of purity and symbiosis. This provides a fertile setting for distributing positive imagery that sees ritualistic, restrained violence in animals as a role model for morally aware human action. We can already see signs of this kind of discourse emerging in popular advocacy for animals like dolphins, whales, and gorillas. Such animals are often attributed an almost spiritual ability to live in peace and harmony with their environment and each other.

The diversity of human cultures equally provides a rich resource with which to think creatively about building a peace culture. The literature on small-scale societies can be studied for ideas about how to replace a culture that valorizes escalated violence with one that recognizes the superiority of low-harm alternatives. An enhanced understanding of the ritual and symbolic foundations of contemporary violence can lead to greater reflexivity about existing practices and promote the search for nonviolent alternatives. By the same token, we can look in a pragmatic way for forms of symbolic action that seem to offer more positive alternatives. In the case of ritual, for example, the weight of academic research suggests that militaristic parades do little to build peace and understanding. Alternative commemorative forms, however, can play an important role in breaking down barriers and building pacifist solidarity. In their book Dark Tourism, John Lennon and Malcolm Foley show how sites of death, disaster, and atrocities have increasingly become sites of modern pilgrimage. From fieldwork at places such as the Auschwitz death camps and tours of World War II battlefields, they argue that tourism at these sites promote doubt about the project of modernity and the questioning of the infallibility of science and technology. In a more detailed ethnographic study on tourism at the World War I Gallipoli battlefields in Turkey, Brad West similarly demonstrates how international tourism can foster sentiments of tolerance and peace. From interviews with young Australian budget travelers, he argues that a new national collective memory of the campaign has developed in which former foes Turkey and Australia/New Zealand have been reimagined as friends that share common historical event of sacrifice. By looking at these kinds of success stories and through analyzing their symbolic and ritual foundations for generalizable principles, peace activists can start to construct lines of action that might make a difference.

Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128201954000091

What does Social Darwinism say about the poor?

He concluded that some people were destined for wealth and power because they were naturally stronger. Poverty would always exist, Spencer concluded, because the stronger members of society would triumph over the weaker members.

What problems did Social Darwinism cause?

Social Darwinists believe in “survival of the fittest”—the idea that certain people become powerful in society because they are innately better. Social Darwinism has been used to justify imperialism, racism, eugenics and social inequality at various times over the past century and a half.

What was the outcome of Social Darwinism?

With Social Darwinism gaining popularity, inequality gained a strong foothold in the society driven by concepts of eugenics and racism. Around the 1900s, sizable populations around the world believed that the quality of human race should be improved by privileging the best human specimens (including themselves).

Why did Social Darwinism fail?

Social Darwinism declined in popularity as a purportedly scientific concept following the First World War, and was largely discredited by the end of the Second World War—partially due to its association with Nazism and partially due to a growing scientific consensus that eugenics and scientific racism were groundless.