Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism attempts to apply Darwin’s theory of evolution, dealing with the development of plants and animals, to social phenomena. Evolution meant progress, improvement, and eventually perfection of the social organism. Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner were the two of the most outspoken advocates of social Darwinism in sociology. Spencer's social Darwinism is centered on two fundamental principles:

  1. The principle of the survival of the fittest: Spencer endorsed the conception of a natural process of conflict and survival, which operates as a biologically purifying process. Spencer stated that nature is endowed with a tendency to get rid of the unfit and to make room for the better. It is the law of nature that the weak should be eliminated for the sake of the strong. The rapid elimination of unfit individuals from society through natural selection would benefit the race biologically and therefore, the state should do nothing to relieve the condition of the poor who Spencer felt were less fit.

  2. The principle of non-interference: As a logical result of the ideology of Social Darwinism, Spencer advocated individualism and laissez-faire politics. He opposed almost any form of state interference with private activity. He insisted that the state had no business in education, health, sanitation, postal services, money and banking, housing conditions regulation, or poverty elimination. For Spencer, the state was a sort of joint-stock company whose only role was the protection of the rights of the individual and defense of its citizens against external aggression.

Spencer believed sociologists should convince the state and the citizens not to intervene in the natural process of selection operative in society. In his words, ‘nature is more intelligent than man and once you begin to interfere with the order of nature, there is no knowing where the result will end.’

Criticism

Though Spencer is rightly credited with making a significant contribution to early sociology, his attempt to introduce evolutionary ideas into the realm of social science was ultimately unsuccessful. It was considered by many to be actively dangerous. Critics of Spencer’s positivist synthetic philosophy argued that the social sciences were essentially different from the natural sciences and that the methods of the natural sciences, searching for universal laws, were inappropriate for studying human society.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post