History
Wiebke Schröder
Meanings of Social Darwinism
Seminar paper
Wiebke Schroeder
X705: The Meanings of Darwinism
HPS, Fall 2011/12
Dec 12, 2011
Meanings of Social Darwinism
1 Introduction
At first glance, it may be tempting to think of Social Darwinism as a social theory that
originates from the ideas of Charles Darwin. Indeed, some scholars have viewed social
Darwinism explicitly as a certain application of Darwin’s theory on human society.1
However, this connection is not uncontested among historians. John C. Greene for example
arrives at the conclusion that social Darwinism was a widespread phenomenon in the midnineteenth century, of which Darwin was a part, but which he did not start.2 Disregarding the
relation between Darwin and social Darwinism itself, the very reality of the phenomenon of
social Darwinism is contested: Robert C. Bannister views social Darwinism first and
foremost as a social myth.3 Against this background, it seems necessary to take a closer look
at differing definitions of social Darwinism.
First, there are those historians who define social Darwinism independently of Darwin
and those who don’t. Only the above mentioned Greene can clearly be considered as a
member of the former view. Indeed, Hawkins in his definition does not explicitly refer to
Darwin. It seems that he does attempt to define social Darwinism independently of Darwin.
His social Darwinist world-view consists of five statements, among which the fifth is the
1
Clark, Linda L. Social Darwinism in France. University of Alabama, The University of Alabama Press, 1984,
1; Rogers, James Allen. Darwinism and Social Darwinism. Journal of the History of Ideas Volume 33, No. 2,
Apr. - Jun., 1972, 265.
2
Greene, John C. Science, Ideology, and World View. Essays in the History of Evolutionary Ideas. Berkeley/
Los Angeles/ London, University of California Press, 1981, 123.
3
Bannister, Robert C. Social Darwinism. Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought. Philadelphia,
Temple University Press, 1979, 10. crucial one: the extension of scientific determinism to the social existence of human beings.4
Because his statements clearly express Darwin’s theory of natural selection, it is my
contention that in fact, he does not define social Darwinism independently of Darwin. The
other historians who define social Darwinism explicitly as an application of Darwin’s theory
on society differ in their emphasis of particular parts of Darwin’s theory: James Allen Rogers
defines social Darwinism as “[…] the application of Darwin’s theory of natural selection to
the evolution of human society,”5 whereas Linda L. Clark’s definition is similar, but includes
‘struggle for existence’.6 Bannister even embraces ‘survival of the fittest’ in his definition:
“While not limiting the term to any ‘technical’ meaning, the present study likewise focuses
on the specifically Darwinian concepts of struggle for existence, natural selection, and the
survival of the fittest […].”7 In Hofstadter’s view, social Darwinism makes use of ‘struggle
for existence’ and ‘survival of the fittest’, but it also exploits the idea of gradual change.8
Second, one can differentiate between those historians who link social Darwinism to a
certain ideology and those who don’t. Hawkins separates his social Darwinist world-view
explicitly from any specific ideology. While taking up very different viewpoints on the extent
of occurrence of social Darwinism, both Hofstadter and Bannister connect the term to
conservative thought.9 Bannister calls those theorists who refer to Darwin, but criticize the
conclusions that social Darwinists draw, reform Darwinists.10 By also distinguishing between
the social Darwinists on the one side, and the reform Darwinists on the other, Clark links
social Darwinists to a conservative agenda: One group that appears in her study consists of
“[…] writers who emphasized the importance of the ‘struggle for life’ in discussions of
4
Hawkins, Mike. Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860 – 1945. Nature as Model and
Nature as Threat. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997, 31.
5
Rogers, Darwinism, 265.
6
Clark, Social Darwinism in France, 1.
7
Bannister, Social Darwinism, 7. 8
Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 6.
9
Bannister, Social Darwinism, 9; Ibid.
10
Bannister, Social Darwinism, 11.
2
laissez-faire economics, racial struggles, or wars and thus fit the familiar model for ‘social
Darwinists’.”11 While Rogers’ definition of social Darwinism itself does not suggest that he
links it to a certain ideology, one can nevertheless conclude the linkage on the basis of his
usage of the term in his essay. It is my contention that Greene’s definition indicates a linkage
of social Darwinism and conservative thought, for his definition of social Darwinism
encompasses the importance of competitive struggle for human evolution. Thus, among the
secondary literature analyzed in this paper, only Hawkins keeps social Darwinism clearly
apart from any specific political agenda. In Hawkins’ definition there is room for a social
Darwinist position which concludes that cooperation among human beings has evolved due to
the biological laws that determine human development.
Against this background, it is not so surprising that scholars render different
judgments as to whether or not Darwin was a social Darwinist himself. Hofstadter views
Darwin’s theory of evolution as “intrinsically a neutral instrument,”12 whereas Hawkins sees
Darwin clearly as a social Darwinist.13 It is my contention that these differing conclusions
depend on the authors’ different concepts of social Darwinism. The following statement can
be read as a clarification of what Hofstadter means, when he frees Darwin of the charge of
social Darwinism: “There was nothing in Darwinism that inevitably made it an apology for
competition and force.”14 Hawkins, on the other hand, does not base his judgment on the fact
that Darwin was necessarily justifying competition and force. “Darwinism, was [author’s
italic] inherently social in that Darwin himself sought to apply evolutionary theory to mental
and social phenomena.”15 Greene, whose definition includes competition, finds that Darwin is
11
Clark, Social Darwinism in France , 6. While Clark points out that there is a debate about the question on
whether or not so called reform Darwinists could legitimately be called social Darwinists, for the purpose of her
studies she holds on to the distinction between social and reform Darwinists.
12
Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 201. 13
Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 36.
14
Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 201.
15
Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 36.
3